New misspecification tests for multinomial logit models

Dennis Fok and Richard Paap

Journal of choice modelling, 2025, vol. 54, issue C

Abstract: Multinomial Logit [MNL] models are misspecified when the Independence of Irrelevant Assumption [IIA] does not hold. In this paper we compare existing tests for IIA with two newly proposed tests. Both new tests use that, when MNL is the true model, preferences across pairs of alternatives can be described by independent binary logit models. The first test compares Composite Likelihood parameter estimates based on pairs of alternatives with standard Maximum Likelihood estimates using a Hausman (1978) test. The second is a test for overidentification in a GMM framework using more pairs than necessary. A detailed Monte Carlo study shows that the GMM test is in general superior with respect to the performance under the null and under the alternative hypothesis. An empirical illustration demonstrates the practical usefulness of the tests.

Keywords: Discrete choices; Multinomial logit; IIA; Hausman test; Composite likelihood (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: C12 C25 C52 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2025
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755534524000630
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
Working Paper: New Misspecification Tests for Multinomial Logit Models (2019)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:eejocm:v:54:y:2025:i:c:s1755534524000630

DOI: 10.1016/j.jocm.2024.100531

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of choice modelling is currently edited by S. Hess and J.M. Rose

More articles in Journal of choice modelling from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().