实地实验中损耗偏差的检验

IF 5.3 1区 经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Dalia Ghanem, Sarojini Hirshleifer, Karen Ortiz-Becerra
{"title":"实地实验中损耗偏差的检验","authors":"Dalia Ghanem, Sarojini Hirshleifer, Karen Ortiz-Becerra","doi":"10.22004/AG.ECON.291215","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We approach attrition in field experiments with baseline outcome data as an identification problem in a panel model. A systematic review of the literature indicates that there is no consensus on how to test for attrition bias. We establish identifying assumptions for treatment effects for both the respondent subpopulation and the study population. We then derive their sharp testable implications on the baseline outcome distribution and propose randomization procedures to test them. We demonstrate that the most commonly used test does not control size in general when internal validity holds. Simulations and applications illustrate the empirical relevance of our analysis.","PeriodicalId":48346,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Resources","volume":"25 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"23","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Testing Attrition Bias in Field Experiments\",\"authors\":\"Dalia Ghanem, Sarojini Hirshleifer, Karen Ortiz-Becerra\",\"doi\":\"10.22004/AG.ECON.291215\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We approach attrition in field experiments with baseline outcome data as an identification problem in a panel model. A systematic review of the literature indicates that there is no consensus on how to test for attrition bias. We establish identifying assumptions for treatment effects for both the respondent subpopulation and the study population. We then derive their sharp testable implications on the baseline outcome distribution and propose randomization procedures to test them. We demonstrate that the most commonly used test does not control size in general when internal validity holds. Simulations and applications illustrate the empirical relevance of our analysis.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48346,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Human Resources\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"23\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Human Resources\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22004/AG.ECON.291215\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Human Resources","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22004/AG.ECON.291215","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 23

摘要

我们将基线结果数据作为面板模型中的识别问题来处理现场实验中的磨损。对文献的系统回顾表明,在如何测试损耗偏差方面没有达成共识。我们为被调查者亚群和研究人群建立了治疗效果的识别假设。然后,我们得出了它们在基线结果分布上的明显可测试的含义,并提出了随机化程序来测试它们。我们证明,当内部效度保持不变时,最常用的测试通常不能控制大小。模拟和应用说明了我们分析的经验相关性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Testing Attrition Bias in Field Experiments
We approach attrition in field experiments with baseline outcome data as an identification problem in a panel model. A systematic review of the literature indicates that there is no consensus on how to test for attrition bias. We establish identifying assumptions for treatment effects for both the respondent subpopulation and the study population. We then derive their sharp testable implications on the baseline outcome distribution and propose randomization procedures to test them. We demonstrate that the most commonly used test does not control size in general when internal validity holds. Simulations and applications illustrate the empirical relevance of our analysis.
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
7.00
自引率
1.90%
发文量
53
期刊介绍: The Journal of Human Resources is among the leading journals in empirical microeconomics. Intended for scholars, policy makers, and practitioners, each issue examines research in a variety of fields including labor economics, development economics, health economics, and the economics of education, discrimination, and retirement. Founded in 1965, the Journal of Human Resources features articles that make scientific contributions in research relevant to public policy practitioners.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信