Interpreting the outcomes of two-part models

Applied Economics Letters

Volumn 19, Issue 10, 2012, Pages 987-992

  Frondel, Manuel ^a,b   Vance, Colin James ^b,c  

^a RUHR UNIVERSITY BOCHUM   (Germany)

^b RWI LEIBNIZ INSTITUTE FOR ECONOMIC RESEARCH   (Germany)

^c JACOBS UNIVERSITY BREMEN   (Germany)

Author keywords

Censored regression model; Interaction terms; Marginal and interaction effects

Indexed keywords

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS; MODELING; REGRESSION ANALYSIS;

EID: 80053211907     PISSN: 13504851     EISSN: 14664291     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13504851.2011.610733     Document Type: Article

References (8)

1. Ai, C. and Norton, E. C. (2003) Interaction terms in logit and probit models, Economics Letters, 80, 123-9.
2. Dow, W. H. and Norton, E. C. (2003) Choosing between and interpreting the Heckit and two-part models for corner solutions, Health Services & Outcomes Research Methodology, 4, 5-18.
3. Frondel, M., Peters, J. and Vance, C. (2008) Identifying the rebound: evidence from a German household panel, The Energy Journal, 29, 154-63.
4. Frondel, M. and Vance, C. (2009) Do high oil prices matter? Evidence on the mobility behavior of German house- holds, Environmental and Resource Economics, 43, 81-94.
5. Frondel, M. and Vance, C. (2010) Driving for fun? Comparing the effect of fuel prices on weekday and weekend fuel consumption, Energy Economics, 32, 102-9.
6. Heckman, J. (1979) Sample selection bias as a specification error, Econometrica, 47, 153-61.
7. MOP (2011) German Mobility Panel. Available at http:// mobilitaetspanel.ifv.uni-karlsruhe.de/de/studie/index.html (accessed 19 August 2011).
8. Norton, E. C., Wang, H. and Ai, C. (2004) Computing interaction effects and standard errors in logit and pro- bit models, The Stata Journal, 4, 103-16.