控制组不服从情况下用非实验方法复制实验影响评估

IF 1.5 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICAL METHODS Statistics and Public Policy Pub Date : 2016-01-01 DOI:10.1080/2330443X.2015.1084252
Brian Gill, J. Furgeson, Hanley S. Chiang, Bing-ru Teh, J. Haimson, Natalya Verbitsky Savitz
{"title":"控制组不服从情况下用非实验方法复制实验影响评估","authors":"Brian Gill, J. Furgeson, Hanley S. Chiang, Bing-ru Teh, J. Haimson, Natalya Verbitsky Savitz","doi":"10.1080/2330443X.2015.1084252","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT A growing literature on within-study comparisons (WSC) examines whether and in what context nonexperimental methods can successfully replicate the results of randomized experiments. WSCs require that the experimental and nonexperimental methods assess the same causal estimand. But experiments that include noncompliance in treatment assignment produce a divergence in the causal estimands measured by standard approaches: the experiment-based estimate of the impact of treatment (the complier average causal effect, CACE) applies only to compliers, while the nonexperimental estimate applies to all subjects receiving treatment, including always-takers. We develop a new replication approach that solves this problem by using nonexperimental methods to produce an estimate that can be compared to the experimental intent-to-treat (ITT) impact estimate rather than the CACE. We demonstrate the applicability of the method in a WSC of the effects of charter schools on student achievement. In our example, some members of the randomized control group crossed over to treatment by enrolling in the charter schools. We show that several nonexperimental methods that incorporate pretreatment measures of the outcome of interest can successfully replicate experimental ITT impact estimates when control-group noncompliance (crossover) occurs—even when treatment effects differ for compliers and always takers.","PeriodicalId":43397,"journal":{"name":"Statistics and Public Policy","volume":"214 1","pages":"1 - 11"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2016-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"13","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Replicating Experimental Impact Estimates with Nonexperimental Methods in the Context of Control-Group Noncompliance\",\"authors\":\"Brian Gill, J. Furgeson, Hanley S. Chiang, Bing-ru Teh, J. Haimson, Natalya Verbitsky Savitz\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/2330443X.2015.1084252\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT A growing literature on within-study comparisons (WSC) examines whether and in what context nonexperimental methods can successfully replicate the results of randomized experiments. WSCs require that the experimental and nonexperimental methods assess the same causal estimand. But experiments that include noncompliance in treatment assignment produce a divergence in the causal estimands measured by standard approaches: the experiment-based estimate of the impact of treatment (the complier average causal effect, CACE) applies only to compliers, while the nonexperimental estimate applies to all subjects receiving treatment, including always-takers. We develop a new replication approach that solves this problem by using nonexperimental methods to produce an estimate that can be compared to the experimental intent-to-treat (ITT) impact estimate rather than the CACE. We demonstrate the applicability of the method in a WSC of the effects of charter schools on student achievement. In our example, some members of the randomized control group crossed over to treatment by enrolling in the charter schools. We show that several nonexperimental methods that incorporate pretreatment measures of the outcome of interest can successfully replicate experimental ITT impact estimates when control-group noncompliance (crossover) occurs—even when treatment effects differ for compliers and always takers.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43397,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Statistics and Public Policy\",\"volume\":\"214 1\",\"pages\":\"1 - 11\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"13\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Statistics and Public Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/2330443X.2015.1084252\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICAL METHODS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Statistics and Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2330443X.2015.1084252","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICAL METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

摘要

越来越多关于研究内比较(WSC)的文献探讨了非实验方法是否以及在什么情况下可以成功地复制随机实验的结果。WSCs要求实验和非实验方法评估相同的因果估计。但是,包括治疗分配不依从性在内的实验,在用标准方法测量的因果估计中产生了分歧:基于实验的治疗影响估计(编译者平均因果效应,CACE)仅适用于编译者,而非实验估计适用于所有接受治疗的受试者,包括总是接受治疗的受试者。我们开发了一种新的复制方法,通过使用非实验方法来产生一个可以与实验意向治疗(ITT)影响估计(而不是CACE)进行比较的估计,从而解决了这个问题。我们在特许学校对学生成绩影响的WSC中证明了该方法的适用性。在我们的例子中,随机对照组的一些成员通过注册特许学校而进入治疗。我们表明,当控制组不服从(交叉)发生时,几种包含感兴趣结果的预处理措施的非实验方法可以成功地复制实验ITT影响估计-即使在编译者和总是接受者的治疗效果不同的情况下。
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
Replicating Experimental Impact Estimates with Nonexperimental Methods in the Context of Control-Group Noncompliance
ABSTRACT A growing literature on within-study comparisons (WSC) examines whether and in what context nonexperimental methods can successfully replicate the results of randomized experiments. WSCs require that the experimental and nonexperimental methods assess the same causal estimand. But experiments that include noncompliance in treatment assignment produce a divergence in the causal estimands measured by standard approaches: the experiment-based estimate of the impact of treatment (the complier average causal effect, CACE) applies only to compliers, while the nonexperimental estimate applies to all subjects receiving treatment, including always-takers. We develop a new replication approach that solves this problem by using nonexperimental methods to produce an estimate that can be compared to the experimental intent-to-treat (ITT) impact estimate rather than the CACE. We demonstrate the applicability of the method in a WSC of the effects of charter schools on student achievement. In our example, some members of the randomized control group crossed over to treatment by enrolling in the charter schools. We show that several nonexperimental methods that incorporate pretreatment measures of the outcome of interest can successfully replicate experimental ITT impact estimates when control-group noncompliance (crossover) occurs—even when treatment effects differ for compliers and always takers.
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
Statistics and Public Policy
Statistics and Public Policy SOCIAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICAL METHODS-
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
6.20%
发文量
13
审稿时长
32 weeks
期刊最新文献
State-Building through Public Land Disposal? An Application of Matrix Completion for Counterfactual Prediction Clusters of Jail Incarcerations in US Counties: 2010-2018 Comment on ‘What protects the autonomy of the Federal Statistics Agencies? An Assessment of the Procedures in Place That Protect the Independence and Objectivity of Official Statistics” by Pierson et al. On Coping in a Non-Binary World: Rejoinder to Biedermann and Kotsoglou Commentary on “Three-Way ROCs for Forensic Decision Making” by Nicholas Scurich and Richard S. John (in: Statistics and Public Policy)
×
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