2SLS HATCO SPSS and SHAZAM Example by Eddie Oczkowski August 2001

This example illustrates how to use SPSS to estimate and evaluate a 2SLS latent variable model. The bulk of the example relates to SPSS, the SHAZAM code is provided on the final page. We employ data from Hair et al (Multivariate Data Analysis, 1998). The data pertain to a company called HATCO and relate to purchase outcomes from and perceptions of the company. The models presented may not necessarily be good models, we simply use them for presentation purposes. Consider a model which has a single dependent variable (usage) and two latent independent variables (strategy and image).

Dependent variable X9: Usage Level (how much of the firms total product is purchased from HATCO).

Latent Independent Variables Strategy X1: Delivery Speed (assume this is the scaling variable) X2: Price Level X3: Price Flexibility X7: Product Quality Image X4: Manufacturers Image (assume this is the scaling variable) X6: Salesforce image

2SLS Estimation The 2SLS option is gained via: Analyze Regression 2-Stage Least Squares For our basic model (usage against strategy and image) the variable boxes are filled by: Dependent Variable: Explanatory Variables: Instrumental Variables: X9 X1 and X4 (these are our scaling variables) X2, X3, X7 and X6 (these are our non-scaling variables)

For the diagnostic testing of the model it is useful to save the residuals and predictions from this model using Options.

Part of the output from this 2SLS model is:

Two-stage Least Squares Equation number: 1 Dependent variable.. X9

Multiple R R Square Adjusted R Square Standard Error

.58798 .34573 .33224 6.61991

Analysis of Variance: DF 2 97 Sum of Squares Mean Square 2246.2000 1123.1000 4250.8496 43.8232

Regression Residuals F= 25.62798

Signif F = .0000

------------------ Variables in the Equation -----------------Variable X1 X4 (Constant) B 5.362919 2.284282 15.261425 SE B .834134 .735917 4.877526 Beta .787978 .287522 T 6.429 3.104 3.129 Sig T .0000 .0025 .0023

The following new variables are being created: Name FIT_1 ERR_1 Label Fit for X9 from 2SLS, MOD_2 Equation 1 Error for X9 from 2SLS, MOD_2 Equation 1

Comments: The R-Square is 0.34 and F-statistic being significant indicates reasonable overall fit. The two independent variables are both statistically significant with expected positive signs. Two variables have been created: FIT_1 is the IV fitted value variable while ERR_1 is the IV residual.

2SLS as two OLS Regressions Consider now the 2 step method for calculating estimates. get the 2SLS forecasts and residuals for later diagnostic testing. This should be employed to

The first step is to run a regression for each scaling variable against all instruments and save predictions. OLS Regression: X1 against X2, X3, X6, X7, save predictions. OLS Regression: X4 against X2, X3, X6, X7, save predictions. Recall the R-square values from these runs can be examined to ascertain the possible usefulness of the instruments.

The standard OLS option is gained via: Analyze Regression Linear The 1st regression is: OLS Regression: X1 against X2, X3, X6, X7, save predictions.

Save the predictions in the Save box.

Part of the output from the regression is:

Regression
Model Summaryb Adjusted R Square .338 Std. Error of the Estimate 1.075

Model 1

R R Square .604a .365

a. Predictors: (Constant), Product Quality, Salesforce Image, Price Flexibility, Price Level b. Dependent Variable: Delivery Speed

Coefficientsa Standardi zed Coefficien ts Beta -.058 .338 .158 -.332

Model 1

(Constant) Price Level Price Flexibility Salesforce Image Product Quality

Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error 2.335 1.117 -6.44E-02 .110 .322 .094 .271 .144 -.277 .081

t 2.091 -.583 3.438 1.884 -3.409

Sig. .039 .561 .001 .063 .001

a. Dependent Variable: Delivery Speed

Comments: The R-square exceeds 0.10 and some variables are significant, this indicates some instrument acceptability. Note, however, that Price Level appears not to be a good instrument. A new variable with the predictions has been saved here: pre_1. The same approach is used for the other scaling variable. OLS Regression: X4 against X2, X3, X6, X7, save predictions. Part of the output from this regression is:

Regression
Model Summaryb Model 1 R R Square .799a .639 Adjusted R Square .623 Std. Error of the Estimate .694

a. Predictors: (Constant), Product Quality, Salesforce Image, Price Flexibility, Price Level b. Dependent Variable: Manufacturer Image

Coefficientsa Standardi zed Coefficien ts Beta .114 -.037 .767 -.006

Model 1

(Constant) Price Level Price Flexibility Salesforce Image Product Quality

Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error 2.261 .721 .108 .071 -3.01E-02 .060 1.125 .093 -4.41E-03 .052

t 3.134 1.516 -.498 12.087 -.084

Sig. .002 .133 .620 .000 .933

a. Dependent Variable: Manufacturer Image

Comments: The R-square is much better here, and so the instruments appear to be better for image rather than strategy. Here clearly Salesforce Image is the key instrument for the image scaling variable. A new variable with the predictions has been saved here: pre_2. The final step in the process is to OLS regress the dependent variable (X9) on the two new prediction variables (pre_1 and pre_2).

To produce the 2SLS forecasts and residuals we need to use the Save option:

Part of the output from the 2nd stage regression is:

Regression
Model Summaryb Model 1 R R Square .530a .281 Adjusted R Square .266 Std. Error of the Estimate 7.701

a. Predictors: (Constant), Unstandardized Predicted Value, Unstandardized Predicted Value b. Dependent Variable: Usage Level

ANOVAb Model 1 Sum of Squares 2246.200 5752.800 7999.000 df 2 97 99 Mean Square 1123.100 59.307 F 18.937 Sig. .000a

Regression Residual Total

a. Predictors: (Constant), Unstandardized Predicted Value, Unstandardized Predicted Value b. Dependent Variable: Usage Level

Coefficientsa Standardi zed Coefficien ts Beta

Model 1

(Constant) Unstandardized Predicted Value Unstandardized Predicted Value

Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error 15.261 5.674 5.363 2.284 .970 .856

t 2.690 5.527 2.668

Sig. .008 .000 .009

.476 .230

a. Dependent Variable: Usage Level

Comments: Note how the parameter estimates are the same between this regression and the initial 2SLS model. Also note how the standard errors (and hence t and significance levels) are different. The reported R -square is the (GR 2 ) generalized R -square referred to in the notes and this indicates how 28.1% of the variation in the data is explained. This is different to the initially presented R-square in the 2SLS model of 34.6%. Two new variables have been saved: pre_3 which are the 2SLS forecasts and res_1 which are the 2SLS residuals.

Over-identifying Restrictions Test To perform this test we perform a regression of the IV residuals (err_1) against all the instruments: X2, X3, X6, X7. Note the R-square from this regression and multiply it by the sample size (N = 100) to get the test statistic. In this case the degrees of freedom (no. of instruments less no. of RHS variables) is (4 2 = 2). At the 5% level of significance the critical value for a chi-square with d.f. = 2 is: 5.99

10

The relevant regression window is:

Part of the output from this regression is:

Regression
Model Summary Model 1 R R Square a .680 .462 Adjusted R Square .440 Std. Error of the Estimate 4.9052771

a. Predictors: (Constant), Product Quality, Salesforce Image, Price Flexibility, Price Level

11

Coefficientsa Standardi zed Coefficien ts Beta .641 .660 -.176 .205

Model 1

(Constant) Price Level Price Flexibility Salesforce Image Product Quality

Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error -34.839 5.097 3.511 .504 3.119 .427 -1.496 .658 .847 .370

t -6.836 6.964 7.308 -2.274 2.285

Sig. .000 .000 .000 .025 .025

a. Dependent Variable: Error for X9 from 2SLS, MOD_2 Equation 1

Comments: The R-square is 0.462 and so the test statistic is: N * R-Square = 100 (0.462) = 46.2, this far exceeds the critical value of 5.99 and therefore we conclude that there is a model specification problem or the instruments are invalid. There is a major problem here. Note, all the instruments are significant in this equation illustrating how the instruments can explain significant amounts of the variation in the residuals.

RESET (Specification Error Test) To perform this test we first need to compute the square of the 2SLS forecasts. That is we need to compute: pre_3 *pre_3. We can call the new variable whatever we want, say, pre_32.

12

To do this we use the option: Transform Compute

The new variable pre_32 is now added to the original 2SLS model. That is, we employ the original dependent, independent and instrumental variables, but we add to the independent variables and instrumental variables pre_32. Part of the output from this 2SLS regression is:
Two-stage Least Squares Dependent variable.. X9

Multiple R R Square Adjusted R Square Standard Error

.48849 .23863 .21483 8.68198

13

------------------ Variables in the Equation -----------------Variable X1 X4 PRE_32 (Constant) B 8.950208 3.877008 -.007123 9.590647 SE B 8.336701 3.794486 .016422 14.521680 Beta 1.315060 .487998 -.360003 T 1.074 1.022 -.434 .660 Sig T .2857 .3095 .6655 .5106

Comments: The test statistic is the t ratio for pre_32. In this case the t ratio is 0.434 with a p-value of 0.6655. This is highly insignificant. This implies that there are no omitted variables and the functional form can be trusted. Taken together with the previous test, this may imply that the problems with the model relate to inadequate instruments.
Heteroscedasticity Test

To perform this test we initially have to square the IV residuals using the compute option: err_12 = err_1 * err_1

14

This new variable (err_12) is then regressed against the 2SLS forecasts (pre_32) and the t-ratio on the forecast variable represents the test statistic.

The output from this regression is:

Regression
Model Summary Model 1 R R Square .069a .005 Adjusted R Square -.005 Std. Error of the Estimate 51.4851

a. Predictors: (Constant), PRE_32

15

Coefficientsa Standardi zed Coefficien ts Beta .069

Model 1

Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error (Constant) 25.777 24.997 PRE_32 7.790E-03 .011

t 1.031 .684

Sig. .305 .496

a. Dependent Variable: ERR_12

The t-ratio on pre_32 is 0.684 with a p-value of 0.496, this is highly insignificant indicating the absence of heteroscedastcity.

Interaction Effects To illustrate interaction effects, assume that strategy and image interact to create a new interaction latent independent variable. This variable is in addition to the original two independent variables. To create the new variables we employ the transform compute option. For the new independent variable we multiply the scaling variables by each other: say X1X4 = X1*X4

16

The instruments for this new variable are the products of all the remaining non-scaling variables across the two constructs. Since there is only one non-scaling variable for image we simply multiply it with the non-scaling variables for strategy to get our instruments: X2X6 =X2*X6 X3X6 = X3*X6 X7X6 = X7*X6

Thus the original 2SLS model is run again with one new explanatory variable X1X4 and three new instrumental variables X2X6, X3X6, X7X6.

Part of the output from this 2SLS regression is:

Two-stage Least Squares

Dependent variable.. X9 Multiple R R Square Adjusted R Square Standard Error .59043 .34861 .32826 6.67686

17

------------------ Variables in the Equation -----------------Variable X1 X4 X1X4 (Constant) B 8.295013 4.506761 -.555352 3.577392 SE B 4.662882 3.536422 .859773 19.010684 Beta 1.218792 .567265 -.519850 T 1.779 1.274 -.646 .188 Sig T .0784 .2056 .5199 .8511

Comments: Note, this model appears to be inferior to the original specification. All the variables are now insignificant, including the new interaction term X1X4.

Non-nested Testing To illustrate these tests consider two models: Model A: Model B: Usage Strategy Usage Image We will conduct a

Assume we wish to ascertain which variable better explains usage. paired test alternating the role of Models A and B. Case 1 H0: Null model: H1: Alternative model: Usage Strategy Usage Image

In terms of our notation, our xs are the strategy indicators while the ws are the image indicators. The three steps are: 1. 2. 3. Regression: X4 on X6 and save the predictions (pre_4). 2SLS regression X9 on X1 and pre_4 (instruments: X2, X3, X7 and pre_4). The t-ratio on the pre_4 variable is the test statistic.

The output from this 2SLS regression is:

Two-stage Least Squares

Dependent variable.. X9 Multiple R R Square Adjusted R Square Standard Error .58664 .34415 .33062 6.47420

18

------------------ Variables in the Equation -----------------Variable X1 PRE_4 (Constant) B 5.095873 1.998917 17.697687 SE B .822486 .735642 4.564165 Beta .748740 .198320 T 6.196 2.717 3.878 Sig T .0000 .0078 .0002

Comments: The t-ratio for Pre_4 is 2.717 with a p-value of 0.0078, this is highly significant. This implies that the alternative model H1 image rejects the null model H0 strategy. Case 2 H0: Null model: H1: Alternative model: Usage Image Usage Strategy

In terms of our notation our, xs are the image indicators while the ws are the strategy indicators. The three steps are: 1. 4. 5. Regression: X1 on X2,X3,X7 and save the predictions (pre_5). 2SLS regression X9 on X4 and pre_5 (instruments: X6 and pre_5). The t-ratio on the pre_5 variable is the test statistic.

The output from this 2SLS regression is:

Two-stage Least Squares

Dependent variable.. X9 Multiple R R Square Adjusted R Square Standard Error .53666 .28800 .27332 7.68902

------------------ Variables in the Equation -----------------Variable X4 PRE_5 (Constant) B 3.227772 6.010515 8.033696 SE B .886499 1.032240 6.596728 Beta .406279 .515718 T 3.641 5.823 1.218 Sig T .0004 .0000 .2262

Comments: The t-ratio for Pre_5 is 5.823 with a p-value of 0.0000, this is highly significant. This implies that the alternative model H1 strategy rejects the null model H0 image. In summary these results combined imply that both models reject each other and therefore it is erroneous to use either in isolation.

19

2SLS HATCO SHAZAM EXAMPLE This section presents the SHAZAM code corresponding to the SPSS example. * Original 2SLS model 2SLS X9 X1 X4 (X2 X3 X7 X6) / PREDICT=FIT_1 RESID=ERR_1 * 2 step OLS version to get 2SLS predictions, residuals and GR^2 OLS X1 X2 X3 X6 X7 / PREDICT=PRE_1 OLS X4 X2 X3 X6 X7 / PREDICT=PRE_2 OLS X9 PRE_1 PRE_2 / PREDICT=PRE_3 RESID=RES_1 * Over-identifying restrictions test OLS ERR_1 X2 X3 X6 X7 *RESET test GENR PRE_32=PRE_3*PRE_3 2SLS X9 X1 X4 PRE_32 (X2 X3 X7 X6 PRE_32) * Heteroscedasticity Test GENR ERR_12=ERR_1*ERR_1 OLS ERR_12 PRE_32 * Interactions Model Specification GENR X1X4=X1*X4 GENR X2X6=X2*X6 GENR X3X6=X3*X6 GENR X7X6=X7*X6 2SLS X9 X1 X4 X1X4 (X2 X3 X7 X6 X2X6 X3X6 X7X6) * Non-nested Test Case 1 OLS X4 X6 / PREDICT=PRE_4 2SLS X9 X1 PRE_4 (X2 X3 X7 PRE_4) * Non-nested Test Case 2 OLS X1 X2 X3 X7 / PREDICT=PRE_5 2SLS X9 X4 PRE_5 (X6 PRE_5)

20