Testing probabilistic discrete choice models of travel demand by comparing predicted and observed aggregate choice shares

Probabilistic discrete choice models of travel demand often are tested for the presence of specification errors by comparing the models' predictions of aggregate choice shares in population strata with observed shares. A model is rejected as misspecified if the differences between its predictions and the observations are judged too large. This judgement usually is made on intuitive grounds without use of formal statistical methods and, therefore includes no systematic method for distinguishing the effects of specification errors on differences between predictions and observations from those of random sampling errors. This paper represents formal statistical tests for comparing predicted and observed aggregate chioce shares in population strata and reports the results of an investigation of the power of the tests. The test statistics are asymptotically [chi]2 disturbed when the model being tested is correctly specified. The results of the power investigation suggests that greater power is obtained (i.e. there is ability to detect misspecified models) when all of the available data are used for both parameter estimation and specification testing than when the available data are divided into separate estimation and test data sets. Specification tests based on comparisons of predicted and observed aggregate choice shares appear to have less power than do likelihood ratio and likelihood ratio index specification tests when the alternative models required by the latter tests are correctly or approximately correctly specified. However, tests based on comparisons of predicted and observed shares ca have greater power than the other tests when the alternative models are seriouslymisspecified.