Weighting for External Validity

Isaiah Andrews, E. Oster
{"title":"Weighting for External Validity","authors":"Isaiah Andrews, E. Oster","doi":"10.3386/W23826","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"External validity is a fundamental challenge in treatment effect estimation. Even when researchers credibly identify average treatment effects – for example through randomized experiments – the results may not extrapolate to the population of interest for a given policy question. If the population and sample differ only in the distribution of observed variables this problem has a well-known solution: reweight the sample to match the population. In many cases, however, the population and sample differ along dimensions unobserved by the researcher. We provide a tractable framework for thinking about external validity in such cases. Our approach relies on the fact that when the sample is drawn from the same support as the population of interest there exist weights which, if known, would allow us to reweight the sample to match the population. These weights are larger in a stochastic sense when the sample is more selected, and their correlation with a given variable reflects the intensity of selection along this dimension. We suggest natural benchmarks for assessing external validity, discuss implementation, and apply our results to data from several recent experiments.","PeriodicalId":18934,"journal":{"name":"National Bureau of Economic Research","volume":"46 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"34","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"National Bureau of Economic Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3386/W23826","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 34

Abstract

External validity is a fundamental challenge in treatment effect estimation. Even when researchers credibly identify average treatment effects – for example through randomized experiments – the results may not extrapolate to the population of interest for a given policy question. If the population and sample differ only in the distribution of observed variables this problem has a well-known solution: reweight the sample to match the population. In many cases, however, the population and sample differ along dimensions unobserved by the researcher. We provide a tractable framework for thinking about external validity in such cases. Our approach relies on the fact that when the sample is drawn from the same support as the population of interest there exist weights which, if known, would allow us to reweight the sample to match the population. These weights are larger in a stochastic sense when the sample is more selected, and their correlation with a given variable reflects the intensity of selection along this dimension. We suggest natural benchmarks for assessing external validity, discuss implementation, and apply our results to data from several recent experiments.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
外部效度加权
外部效度是治疗效果评估的一个基本问题。即使研究人员可信地确定了平均治疗效果——例如通过随机实验——结果也可能无法推断出针对给定政策问题的相关人群。如果总体和样本只在观察变量的分布上不同,这个问题有一个众所周知的解决方案:重新加权样本以匹配总体。然而,在许多情况下,总体和样本在研究者未观察到的维度上存在差异。我们提供了一个易于处理的框架来思考这种情况下的外部有效性。我们的方法依赖于这样一个事实,即当样本来自与感兴趣的总体相同的支持时,存在一些权重,如果已知,将允许我们重新加权样本以匹配总体。当样本被更多地选择时,这些权重在随机意义上更大,它们与给定变量的相关性反映了该维度上的选择强度。我们建议自然基准来评估外部有效性,讨论实施,并将我们的结果应用于最近几个实验的数据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Maximum Employment and the Participation Cycle Gay Politics Goes Mainstream: Democrats, Republicans, and Same-Sex Relationships Welfare and Output with Income Effects and Taste Shocks Which Markets (Don't) Drive Pharmaceutical Innovation? Evidence From U.S. Medicaid Expansions School Reopenings, Mobility, and COVID-19 Spread: Evidence from Texas
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1