Insufficient Statistical Power of the Chi-Square Model Fit Test for the Exclusion Assumption of the Instrumental Variable Method

IF 2.3 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences Pub Date : 2024-05-27 DOI:10.1007/s40647-024-00414-3
Zijun Ke
{"title":"Insufficient Statistical Power of the Chi-Square Model Fit Test for the Exclusion Assumption of the Instrumental Variable Method","authors":"Zijun Ke","doi":"10.1007/s40647-024-00414-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Regression estimates are biased when potential confounders are omitted or when there are other similar risks to validity. The instrumental variable (IV) method can be used instead to obtain less biased estimates or to strengthen causal inferences. One key assumption critical to the validity of the IV method is the exclusion assumption, which requires instruments to be correlated with the outcome variable only through endogenous predictors. The chi-square test of model fit is widely used as a diagnostic test for this assumption. Previous simulation studies assessed the power of this diagnostic test only in situations with strong violations of the exclusion assumption. However, low to moderate levels of assumption violation are not uncommon in reality, especially when the exclusion assumption is violated indirectly. In this study, we showed through Monte Carlo simulations that the chi-square model fit test suffered from a severe lack of power (&lt; 30%) to detect violations of the exclusion assumption when the level of violation was of typical size, and the IV causal inferences were severely inaccurate and misleading in this case. We thus advise using the IV method with caution unless there is a chance for thorough assumption diagnostics, like in meta-analyses or experiments.</p>","PeriodicalId":43537,"journal":{"name":"Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences","volume":"238 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1092","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40647-024-00414-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Regression estimates are biased when potential confounders are omitted or when there are other similar risks to validity. The instrumental variable (IV) method can be used instead to obtain less biased estimates or to strengthen causal inferences. One key assumption critical to the validity of the IV method is the exclusion assumption, which requires instruments to be correlated with the outcome variable only through endogenous predictors. The chi-square test of model fit is widely used as a diagnostic test for this assumption. Previous simulation studies assessed the power of this diagnostic test only in situations with strong violations of the exclusion assumption. However, low to moderate levels of assumption violation are not uncommon in reality, especially when the exclusion assumption is violated indirectly. In this study, we showed through Monte Carlo simulations that the chi-square model fit test suffered from a severe lack of power (< 30%) to detect violations of the exclusion assumption when the level of violation was of typical size, and the IV causal inferences were severely inaccurate and misleading in this case. We thus advise using the IV method with caution unless there is a chance for thorough assumption diagnostics, like in meta-analyses or experiments.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
工具变量法排除假设的齐次方模型拟合检验的统计能力不足
如果遗漏了潜在的混杂因素或存在其他类似的有效性风险,回归估计值就会出现偏差。工具变量法(IV)可用于获得偏差较小的估计值或加强因果推断。对 IV 方法有效性至关重要的一个关键假设是排除假设,它要求工具只能通过内生预测因子与结果变量相关。模型拟合度的卡方检验被广泛用作这一假设的诊断检测。以往的模拟研究仅在强烈违反排除假设的情况下评估该诊断检测的有效性。然而,中低度的假设违反在现实中并不少见,尤其是当排除假设被间接违反时。在本研究中,我们通过蒙特卡罗模拟表明,当违反程度达到典型规模时,卡方模型拟合检验严重缺乏检测违反排除假设的能力(< 30%),在这种情况下,IV 因果推断严重不准确并具有误导性。因此,我们建议谨慎使用 IV 方法,除非有机会进行彻底的假设诊断,如在荟萃分析或实验中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences
Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
10.00%
发文量
502
期刊介绍: Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences (FJHSS) is a peer-reviewed academic journal that publishes research papers across all academic disciplines in the humanities and social sciences. The Journal aims to promote multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary studies, bridge diverse communities of the humanities and social sciences in the world, provide a platform of academic exchange for scholars and readers from all countries and all regions, promote intellectual development in China’s humanities and social sciences, and encourage original, theoretical, and empirical research into new areas, new issues, and new subject matters. Coverage in FJHSS emphasizes the combination of a “local” focus (e.g., a country- or region-specific perspective) with a “global” concern, and engages in the international scholarly dialogue by offering comparative or global analyses and discussions from multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary perspectives. The journal features special topics, special issues, and original articles of general interest in the disciplines of humanities and social sciences. The journal also invites leading scholars as guest editors to organize special issues or special topics devoted to certain important themes, subject matters, and research agendas in the humanities and social sciences.
期刊最新文献
The Dynamics of Debt Bondage in Pakistan: Causes and Consequences Interreligious Testimonial Dialogue in the Immanent Frame of a Secular Age On the Relationship Between Factor Loadings and Component Loadings When Latent Traits and Specificities are Treated as Latent Factors The Constitution of Hierarchy Comparison of the K1 Rule, Parallel Analysis, and the Bass-Ackward Method on Identifying the Number of Factors in Factor Analysis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1