Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,106

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Robust Test for Weak Instruments

Olea, José Luis Montiel, Pflueger, Carolin·2013·Journal of Business & Economic Statistics
DOI 10.1080/00401706.2013.806694
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We develop a test for weak instruments in linear instrumental variables regression that is robust to heteroscedasticity, autocorrelation, and clustering. Our test statistic is a scaled nonrobust first-stage F statistic. Instruments are considered weak when the two-stage least squares or the limited information maximum likelihood Nagar bias is large relative to a benchmark. We apply our procedures to the estimation of the elasticity of intertemporal substitution, where our test cannot reject the null of weak instruments in a larger number of countries than the test proposed by Stock and Yogo in 2005 Stock, J. and Yogo, M. 2005. “Testing for Weak Instruments In Linear IV Regression,”. In Identification and Inference for Econometric Models: Essays in Honor of Thomas Rothenberg, Edited by: W, D., Andrews, ., J, and, H, . and Stock, . 80–108. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]. Supplementary materials for this article are available online.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/00401706.2013.806694

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 41

  1. Andrews D. W. K., 2006, Advances in Economics and Econometrics, Theory and Applications (9th Congress of the Econometric Society) (Vol. 3), 122
  2. Bansal R., 2004, Journal of Finance, 59, 1481, 10.1111/j.1540-6261.2004.00670.x · DOI · Paper page
  3. Baum C. F., 2007, The Stata Journal, 7, 465, 10.1177/1536867X0800700402 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Campbell J., 2003, Handbook of the Economics of Finance, 1, 803, 10.1016/S1574-0102(03)01022-7 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Campbell J., 1989, NBER Macroeconomics Annual 1989 (Vol. 4), 185
  6. Chao J. C., 2012, Econometric Theory, 28, 42, 10.1017/S0266466611000120 · DOI
  7. Conerly M. D., 1988, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83, 811, 10.1080/01621459.1988.10478668 · DOI
  8. Epstein L., 1989, Econometrica, 57, 937, 10.2307/1913778 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Epstein L., 1991, Journal of Political Economy, 99, 263, 10.1086/261750 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Farebrother R., 1990, Applied Statistics, 39, 294, 10.2307/2347778 · DOI
  11. Ghosh B., 1973, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 35, 480, 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1973.tb00976.x · DOI
  12. Grubbs F. E., 1964, Operations Research, 12, 51, 10.1287/opre.12.1.51 · DOI
  13. Guggenberger P., 2010, Econometric Theory, 26, 369, 10.1017/S0266466609100026 · DOI
  14. Guggenberger P., 2010, Journal of Econometrics, 156, 337, 10.1016/j.jeconom.2009.11.003 · DOI
  15. Hall R. E., 1988, The Journal of Political Economy, 96, 339, 10.1086/261539 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Hansen L., 1983, The Journal of Political Economy, 91, 249, 10.1086/261141 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Hausman J. A., 2012, Quantitative Economics, 3, 211, 10.3982/QE89 · DOI
  18. Henshaw R. C., 1966, Econometrica, 34, 646, 10.2307/1909774 · DOI
  19. Imhof J., 1961, Biometrika, 48, 419, 10.1093/biomet/48.3-4.419 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Johnson N. L., 1995, Continuous Univariate Distributions (Vol. 2)
  21. Kleibergen F., 2007, Journal of Econometrics, 139, 181, 10.1016/j.jeconom.2006.06.010 · DOI
  22. Koerts J., 1969, On the Theory and Application of the General Linear Model
  23. Leeb H., 2005, Econometric Theory, 21, 21, 10.1017/S0266466605050036 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Liu H., 2009, Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 53, 853, 10.1016/j.csda.2008.11.025 · DOI
  25. Liu S., 1995, Statistical Papers, 36, 287, 10.1007/BF02926043 · DOI
  26. Mikusheva A., 2010, Journal of Econometrics, 157, 236, 10.1016/j.jeconom.2009.12.003 · DOI
  27. Müller U. K., 2011, Econometrica, 79, 395, 10.3982/ECTA7793 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Nagar A., 1959, Econometrica, 27, 575, 10.2307/1909352 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Patnaik P., 1949, Biometrika, 36, 202
  30. Pearson E., 1959, Biometrika, 46, 364, 10.2307/2333533 · DOI
  31. Rothenberg T. J., 1984, Handbook of Econometrics (Vol. 2), 881, 10.1016/S1573-4412(84)02007-9 · DOI
  32. Ruud P., 2000, An Introduction to Classical Econometric Theory
  33. Staiger D., 1997, Econometrica, 65, 557, 10.2307/2171753 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Stock J., 2002, Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 20, 518, 10.1198/073500102288618658 · DOI · Paper page
  35. Stock J., 2005, Identification and Inference for Econometric Models: Essays in Honor of Thomas Rothenberg, 80, 10.1017/CBO9780511614491.006 · DOI · Paper page
  36. Szekely G., 2003, Probability Theory and Related Fields, 126, 184, 10.1007/s00440-003-0262-6 · DOI
  37. Theil H., 1961, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 56, 793, 10.1080/01621459.1961.10482126 · DOI
  38. Van der Vaart A., 2000, Asymptotic Statistics
  39. Yeh J., 2000, Lectures on Real Analysis, 10.1142/4156 · DOI
  40. Yogo M., 2004, Review of Economics and Statistics, 86, 797, 10.1162/0034653041811770 · DOI · Paper page
  41. Zhang F., 2010, Matrix Theory: Basic Results and Techniques (2nd ed.)

Cited by

See all 1,106

Metadata

Authors
Olea, J. L. M., & Pflueger, C.
Venue
Journal of Business & Economic Statistics
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2013-07
Volume
31
Issue
3
Pages
358-369
ISSN
  • 0735-0015 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-2707
DOI
10.1080/00401706.2013.806694
OpenAlex
W2147146578
Cited by
1,106
References
2
FWCI
11.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Robust Test for Weak Instruments. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/00401706.2013.806694
The paper
Olea, J. L. M., & Pflueger, C. (2013). A Robust Test for Weak Instruments. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics. https://doi.org/10.1080/00401706.2013.806694

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.