ABSTRACT
The beta distribution is routinely used to model variables that assume values in the standard unit interval, (0, 1). Several alternative laws have, nonetheless, been proposed in the literature, such as the Kumaraswamy and simplex distributions. A natural and empirically motivated question is: does the beta law provide an adequate representation for a given dataset? We test the null hypothesis that the beta model is correctly specified against the alternative hypothesis that it does not provide an adequate data fit. Our tests are based on the information matrix equality, which only holds when the model is correctly specified. They are thus sensitive to model misspecification. Simulation evidence shows that the tests perform well, especially when coupled with bootstrap resampling. We model state and county Covid-19 mortality rates in the United States. The misspecification tests indicate that the beta law successfully represents Covid-19 death rates when they are computed using either data from prior to the start of the vaccination campaign or data collected when such a campaign was under way. In the latter case, the beta law is only accepted when the negative impact of vaccination reach on death rates is moderate. The beta model is rejected under data heterogeneity, i.e., when mortality rates are computed using information gathered during both time periods.