Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Endogenous Switching and Sample Selection Models for Binary, Ordinal, and Count Variables

276 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.

Division of Household Labor and Marital Satisfaction in China, Japan, and Korea (2013, background): “For binary or ordinal responses in the second stage, however, maximum likelihood (ML) estimation is more appropriate because accounting for sample selection is complicated by the nonlinear structure of the model (Miranda & Rabe-Hesketh, 2006).”
Delay and secrecy: does industry sponsorship jeopardize disclosure of academic research? (2015, unknown): “When self-selection is taken into account (see Miranda and Rabe-Hesketh, 2006, for econometric details of the ordered Probit model with selection), as shown in Model B of Table 5, the results from the binary Probit analysis continue to hold.”
Cooperative membership and farmers’ choice of marketing channels – Evidence from apple farmers in Shaanxi and Shandong Provinces, China (2018, methodology): “In this study we use a related though slightly different approach, the endogenous switching probit model (Miranda and Rabe-Hesketh, 2006).”
Innovation success of non-R&D-performers: substituting technology by management in SMEs (2009, unknown): “For technical details, see Miranda and Rabe-Hesketh (2006).”