Instrumental Variable Models for Discrete Outcomes

119 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

The bivariate probit model, maximum likelihood estimation, pseudo true parameters and partial identification (2019, background): “The specification in (14) satisfies the assumptions of the structural equation model with a binary outcome and binary endogenous variable as defined and discussed in Chesher (2010).”
Tolerating defiance? Local average treatment effects without monotonicity (2017, background): “…under the assumption that treatment effects have the same sign for all units in the population (see Bhattacharya, Shaikh, and Vytlacil (2008), Chesher (2010), Chiburis (2010), Shaikh and Vytlacil (2011), and Chen, Flores, and Flores-Lagunes (2012)).1 All of these bounds rely on the…”
Intersection bounds: estimation and inference (2009, background): “ntal variables and the returns to schooling ([46]), English auctions ([33]), the returns to language skills ([31]), set identiﬁcation with Tobin regressors ([22]), endogeneity with discrete outcomes ([23]), changes in the distribution of wages ([15]), the study of disability and employment ([40]), e”