Tests whether the treatment is unconfounded given the covariates, using the comparison proposed by Słoczyński, Uysal, and Wooldridge (2022, Section 5), building on Donald, Hsu, and Lieli (2014). Under one-sided noncompliance (nobody takes the treatment without the instrument: \(\Pr(D = 1 \mid Z = 0) = 0\)), the LATT identified through the instrument equals the ATT identified through unconfoundedness of the treatment — so a significant difference between the doubly robust LATT estimate (which uses the instrument) and the doubly robust ATT estimate (which does not) is evidence against unconfoundedness. Unlike the textbook OLS-vs-IV Hausman test, this comparison is robust to treatment effect heterogeneity.
Arguments
- outcome
A formula
y ~ covariatesfor the outcome model. Usey ~ 1for no covariates (required whenmethod = "ipw").- treatment
A formula
d ~ covariatesfor the treatment model.- instrument
A formula
z ~ covariatesfor the instrument propensity score model;zmust be binary 0/1. Usez ~ 1whenmethod = "ra".- data
A data frame containing all variables.
- omodel
Outcome model family:
"linear"(default; continuous),"logit"or"probit"(outcome must be 0/1),"poisson"(outcome must be non-negative), or"flogit"/"fprobit"(fractional outcome in[0, 1], e.g. a proportion). Thef-prefixed families share all estimation with"logit"/"probit"and only relax the response to the unit interval, matching the Statalateffectsomodeloptions.- tmodel
Treatment model family:
"logit"(default; treatment must be 0/1),"probit","linear", or"poisson".- ivmodel
Instrument propensity score model for the LATT half:
"logit"(default) or"ipt".- weights
Optional sampling weights (a numeric vector, or a column name in
datagiven as a string).- cluster
Optional cluster identifier for clustered standard errors (a vector, or a column name in
datagiven as a string).- pstolerance
Overlap tolerance: estimation stops with an error if any estimated instrument propensity score is below
pstoleranceor above1 - pstolerance. Default1e-5.- subset
Optional logical or integer vector selecting rows of
data.
Value
An object of class "htest" with the z statistic, p-value, and
the DR LATT, DR ATT, and difference estimates.
Details
The DR ATT estimator follows the paper's equation (33): a treatment propensity score \(\Pr(D = 1 \mid X)\) is fitted by logit QMLE on the treatment-equation covariates; the outcome model is fitted on the untreated sample weighted by the odds \(\hat p/(1-\hat p)\); and \(\hat\tau_{ATT}\) is the treated-sample mean outcome minus the mean imputed counterfactual. The standard error of the difference comes from stacking the moment conditions of both estimators (and the difference) into one M-estimation system, so the covariance between them is accounted for analytically — the analytic option suggested in the paper.
Note that the two halves adjust on their respective formulas: the LATT half's propensity score uses the instrument-equation covariates, while the ATT half's uses the treatment-equation covariates (both share the outcome model). Supply the same covariate set to all three formulas unless you intend them to differ.
References
Słoczyński, T., S. D. Uysal, and J. M. Wooldridge (2022). "Doubly Robust Estimation of Local Average Treatment Effects Using Inverse Probability Weighted Regression Adjustment." doi:10.48550/arXiv.2208.01300
Donald, S. G., Y.-C. Hsu, and R. P. Lieli (2014). "Testing the Unconfoundedness Assumption via Inverse Probability Weighted Estimators of (L)ATT." Journal of Business & Economic Statistics 32(3), 395-415.
Examples
d <- drlate_sim
d$nvstat[d$rsncode == 0] <- 0L # impose one-sided noncompliance
dr_hausman(lwage ~ age + educ, nvstat ~ age + educ,
rsncode ~ age + educ, data = d)
#>
#> Doubly robust Hausman test of unconfoundedness
#> (Sloczynski-Uysal-Wooldridge 2022, one-sided noncompliance)
#>
#> data: d
#> z = -5.7425, p-value = 9.331e-09
#> alternative hypothesis: two.sided
#> sample estimates:
#> DR LATT DR ATT difference
#> 0.3760331 0.6323210 -0.2562878
#>