Finite mixture models for linked survey and administrative data: Estimation and postestimation

Abstract

Researchers use finite mixture models to analyze linked survey and administrative data on labor earnings, while also accounting for various types of measurement error in each data source. Different combinations of error-ridden and error-free observations characterize latent classes. Latent class probabilities depend on the probabilities of the different types of error. We introduce a suite of commands to fit finite mixture models to linked survey-administrative data: there is a general model and seven simpler variants. We also provide postestimation commands for assessment of reliability, marginal effects, data simulation, and prediction of hybrid variables that combine information from both data sources about the outcome of interest. Our commands can also be used to study measurement errors in other variables besides labor earnings.

Keywords

st0701 ky_fit ky_estat ky_sim linked survey and administrative data measurement error finite mixture models latent class models

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abowd

J. M.

Stinson

M. H.

2013. Estimating measurement error in annual job earnings: A comparison of survey and administrative data. Review of Economics and Statistics 95: 1451–1467. https://doi.org/10.1162/REST_a_00352.

Aitkin

Rubin

D. B.

1985. Estimation and hypothesis testing in finite mixture models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 47: 67–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1985.tb01331.x.

Angel

Disslbacher

Humer

Schnetzer

2019. What did you really earn last year? Explaining measurement error in survey income data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A 182: 1411–1437. https://doi.org/10.1111/rssa.12463.

Bingley

Martinello

2017. Measurement error in income and schooling and the bias of linear estimators. Journal of Labor Economics 35: 1117–1148. https://doi.org/10.1086/692539.

Bollinger

C. R.

1998. Measurement error in the current population survey: A nonparametric look. Journal of Labor Economics 16: 576–594. https://doi.org/10.1086/209899.

Bollinger

C. R.

Hirsch

B. T.

Hokayem

C. M.

Ziliak

J. P.

2018. The good, the bad and the ugly: Measurement error, non-response and administrative mismatch in the CPS. Working Paper, Gatton College of Business, University of Kentucky. http://christopherbollinger.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/GoodBadUglyFull.pdf.

Bound

Krueger

A. B.

1991. The extent of measurement error in longitudinal earnings data: Do two wrongs make a right? Journal of Labor Economics 9: 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1086/298256.

Cameron

A. C.

Trivedi

P. K.

2005. Microeconometrics: Methods and Applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Cawley

2004. The impact of obesity on wages. Journal of Human Resources 39: 451–474. https://doi.org/10.2307/3559022.

10.

Heckman

Singer

1984. A method for minimizing the impact of distributional assumptions in econometric models for duration data. Econometrica 52: 271–320. https://doi.org/10.2307/1911491.

11.

Hyslop

D. R.

Townsend

2020. Earnings dynamics and measurement error in matched survey and administrative data. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 38: 457–469. https://doi.org/10.1080/07350015.2018.1514308.

12.

Jann

2007. Making regression tables simplified. Stata Journal 7: 227–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X0700700207.

13.

Jenkins

S. P.

Rios-Avila

2020. Modelling errors in survey and administrative data on employment earnings: Sensitivity to the fraction assumed to have error-free earnings. Economics Letters 192: 109253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2020.109253.

14.

Jenkins

S. P.

Rios-Avila

2021. Measurement error in earnings data: Replication of Meijer, Rohwedder, and Wansbeek’s mixture model approach to combining survey and register data. Journal of Applied Econometrics 36: 474–483. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.2811.

15.

Jenkins

S. P.

Rios-Avila

Forthcoming. Reconciling reports: Modelling employment earnings and measurement errors using linked survey and administrative data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A.

16.

Kapteyn

Ypma

J. Y.

2007. Measurement error and misclassification: A comparison of survey and administrative data. Journal of Labor Economics 25: 513–551. https://doi.org/10.1086/513298.

17.

Kristensen

Westergaard-Nielsen

2007. A large-scale validation study of measurement errors in longitudinal survey data. Journal of Economic and Social Measurement 32: 65–92. https://doi.org/10.3233/JEM-2007-0283.

18.

Meijer

Rohwedder

Wansbeek

2012. Measurement error in earnings data: Using a mixture model approach to combine survey and register data. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 30: 191–201. https://doi.org/10.1198/jbes.2011.08166.

19.

Redner

R. A.

Walker

H. F.

1984. Mixture densities, maximum likelihood and the EM algorithm. SIAM Review 26: 195–239. https://doi.org/10.1137/1026034.

20.

Yakowitz

S. J.

Spragins

J. D.

1968. On the identifiability of finite mixtures. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 39: 209–214. https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177698520.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB