Dear All,
I am running an IV estimation using the ivreg2 command. When looking at the tests reported at the end of the table I have some doubts. Below the results of the tests:
I use clusterd standard errors. The Underidentification test checls if the instruments are correlated with the endogenous variable. This is clear to me. The Kleibergen-Paap test in my understanding checks if that correlation is weak. Reading this post I read "Strictly speaking, the Kleibergen-Paap statistic can be used for tests of underidentification, but not for weak identification". Therefore it is suggested that the command weakivtest, implementing the test developed by Montiel-Olea and Pflueger (2013) should be used instead.
I cannot understand this point. When reading the aforementioned test, it is said that Monterl-Olea and Pflugger test is meant to check weak instruments in linear instrumental variables regression that is robust to heteroscedasticity, autocorrelation, and clustering. My questions:
1) Which is the difference between Montiel-Olea and Pflueger and Kleibergen-Paap tests? Are they testing different things? Is the difference due to the fact that Montiel-Olea and Pflueger test is robust to heteroskedasticity, autocorrelation and clustering?
2) May I rely on Kleibergen-Paap test to confirm that my instruments are not weak?
Before incidently "discovering" the above post, I was used to rely on Kleibergen-Paap test to confirm that my instruments are strong. But now I am a little bit confused.
Thanks in advance.
Dario
Thanks for your attention
I am running an IV estimation using the ivreg2 command. When looking at the tests reported at the end of the table I have some doubts. Below the results of the tests:
Code:
Underidentification test (Kleibergen-Paap rk LM statistic): 11.832
Chi-sq(5) P-val = 0.0372
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weak identification test (Cragg-Donald Wald F statistic): 19.474
(Kleibergen-Paap rk Wald F statistic): 23.098
I cannot understand this point. When reading the aforementioned test, it is said that Monterl-Olea and Pflugger test is meant to check weak instruments in linear instrumental variables regression that is robust to heteroscedasticity, autocorrelation, and clustering. My questions:
1) Which is the difference between Montiel-Olea and Pflueger and Kleibergen-Paap tests? Are they testing different things? Is the difference due to the fact that Montiel-Olea and Pflueger test is robust to heteroskedasticity, autocorrelation and clustering?
2) May I rely on Kleibergen-Paap test to confirm that my instruments are not weak?
Before incidently "discovering" the above post, I was used to rely on Kleibergen-Paap test to confirm that my instruments are strong. But now I am a little bit confused.
Thanks in advance.
Dario
Thanks for your attention

Comment