回归不连续性设计与定量指标的社会腐败

Vivian C. Wong, Coady Wing
{"title":"回归不连续性设计与定量指标的社会腐败","authors":"Vivian C. Wong, Coady Wing","doi":"10.1353/obs.2017.0006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:Thistlethwaite and Campbell (1960) (TC) introduced the Regression Discontinuity Design (RDD) as a strategy for learning about the causal effects of interventions in 1960. Their introduction highlights the most important strengths and weaknesses of the RDD. The main points of the original paper have held up well to more formal scrutiny. However, TC did not address “manipulation of assignment scores” as an important validity threat to the design. The insight that manipulation is a central validity threat is the most important conceptual advance in the methodological literature since its introduction. Although most modern RDD analyses include density tests for assessing manipulation, results are most convincing when diagnostic probes are used to address specific, plausible threats to validity. In this paper, we examine validity threats to two common RD designs used to evaluate the effects of No Child Left Behind and state pre-kindergarten programs.","PeriodicalId":74335,"journal":{"name":"Observational studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/obs.2017.0006","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Regression Discontinuity Design and the Social Corruption of Quantitative Indicators\",\"authors\":\"Vivian C. Wong, Coady Wing\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/obs.2017.0006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract:Thistlethwaite and Campbell (1960) (TC) introduced the Regression Discontinuity Design (RDD) as a strategy for learning about the causal effects of interventions in 1960. Their introduction highlights the most important strengths and weaknesses of the RDD. The main points of the original paper have held up well to more formal scrutiny. However, TC did not address “manipulation of assignment scores” as an important validity threat to the design. The insight that manipulation is a central validity threat is the most important conceptual advance in the methodological literature since its introduction. Although most modern RDD analyses include density tests for assessing manipulation, results are most convincing when diagnostic probes are used to address specific, plausible threats to validity. In this paper, we examine validity threats to two common RD designs used to evaluate the effects of No Child Left Behind and state pre-kindergarten programs.\",\"PeriodicalId\":74335,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Observational studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/obs.2017.0006\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Observational studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/obs.2017.0006\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Observational studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/obs.2017.0006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要:Thistlethwaite和Campbell(1960)(TC)在1960年引入了回归不连续性设计(RDD),作为了解干预措施因果效应的一种策略。他们的介绍突出了RDD最重要的优势和劣势。原始论文的要点经过了更正式的审查。然而,TC并没有将“作业分数的操纵”视为对设计有效性的重要威胁。操纵是有效性威胁的核心,这是自引入以来方法论文献中最重要的概念进步。尽管大多数现代RDD分析包括用于评估操作的密度测试,但当诊断探针用于解决对有效性的特定、合理威胁时,结果最具说服力。在本文中,我们检验了两种常见的RD设计的有效性威胁,这两种设计用于评估“不让一个孩子掉队”和州立学前教育项目的效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The Regression Discontinuity Design and the Social Corruption of Quantitative Indicators
Abstract:Thistlethwaite and Campbell (1960) (TC) introduced the Regression Discontinuity Design (RDD) as a strategy for learning about the causal effects of interventions in 1960. Their introduction highlights the most important strengths and weaknesses of the RDD. The main points of the original paper have held up well to more formal scrutiny. However, TC did not address “manipulation of assignment scores” as an important validity threat to the design. The insight that manipulation is a central validity threat is the most important conceptual advance in the methodological literature since its introduction. Although most modern RDD analyses include density tests for assessing manipulation, results are most convincing when diagnostic probes are used to address specific, plausible threats to validity. In this paper, we examine validity threats to two common RD designs used to evaluate the effects of No Child Left Behind and state pre-kindergarten programs.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Does matching introduce confounding or selection bias into the matched case-control design? Size-biased sensitivity analysis for matched pairs design to assess the impact of healthcare-associated infections A Software Tutorial for Matching in Clustered Observational Studies Using a difference-in-difference control trial to test an intervention aimed at increasing the take-up of a welfare payment in New Zealand Estimating Treatment Effect with Propensity Score Weighted Regression and Double Machine Learning
×
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