The Effect of Misclassifications in Probit Models: Monte Carlo Simulations and Applications
Abstract
The increased use of models with limited-dependent variables has allowed researchers to test important relationships in political science. Often, however, researchers employing such models fail to acknowledge that the violation of some basic assumptions has in part difference consequences in nonlinear models than in linear ones. In this paper, I demonstrate this for binary probit models in which the dependent variable is systematically miscoded. Contrary to the linear model, such misclassifications affect not only the estimate of the intercept but also those of the other coefficients. In a Monte Carlo simulation, I demonstrate that a model proposed by Hausman, Abrevaya, and Scott-Morton (1998, Misclassification of the dependent variable in a discrete-response setting.Journal of Econometrics87:239–69) allows for correcting these biases in binary probit models. Empirical examples based on reanalyses of models explaining the occurrence of rebellions and civil wars demonstrate the problem that comes from neglecting these misclassifications.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
When reanalyzing several studies on civil war and social protest, Hug (2010) estimates that the amount of misclassification in binary dependent variables ranges all the way up to 20%.
“when reanalyzing several studies on civil war and social protest, Hug (2010)-using the approach proposed by Hausman, Abrevaya, and Scott-Morton (1998)-estimates that the amount of misclassification in binary dependent variables ranges all the way up to 20%”
From Qualitative Comparative Analysis: How Inductive Use and Measurement Error Lead to Problematic Inference (2013) · cites this paper as Hug (2010)
Cites
Armed Conflict 1946-2001: A New Dataset
GLEDITSCH, N. P., WALLENSTEEN, P., ERIKSSON, M., SOLLENBERG, M., & STRAND, H. (2002) · Journal of Peace Research · doi:10.1177/0022343302039005007 · Cited by 3,846 · cited 1× · see citing works
“In research on civil wars, more recent work relies on a threshold of 25 battle deaths (e.g., Gleditsch et al. 2002; Gates and Strand 2004).”
The Phantom Menace: Omitted Variable Bias in Econometric Research
Clarke, K. A. (2005) · Conflict Management and Peace Science · doi:10.1080/07388940500339183 · Cited by 484 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Under the hardly outlandish assumption that the underlying 2 Achen (2005) and Clarke (2005) discuss these problems in a more general context.”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Hug, S. (2013) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mps061 · Cited by 137 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Hug, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Geneva (CH)
- Corresponding author
- Hug, Simon
- ORCID
- Hug, Simon
- Venue
- Political Analysis
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2010
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 78-102
- ISSN
- 1047-1987 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-4989
- OpenAlex
- W3122535320
- Cited by
- 31
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 0.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Political Analysis (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Spatial and Panel Data Analysis
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Statistical Methods and Models
- Keywords
- binary probit model, nonlinear models, estimation bias, civil war onset, limited dependent variable models, political violence
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