Was There a Riverside Miracle? A Hierarchical Framework for Evaluating Programs with Grouped Data
AbstractThis article discusses the evaluation of programs implemented at multiple sites. Two frequently used methods are pooling the data or using fixed effects (an extreme version of which estimates separate models for each site). The former approach ignores site effects. The latter incorporates site effects but lacks a framework for predicting the impact of subsequent implementations of the program (e.g., would a new implementation resemble Riverside?). I present a hierarchical model that lies between these two extremes. Using data from the Greater Avenues for Independence demonstration, I demonstrate that the model captures much of the site-to-site variation of the treatment effects but has less uncertainty than estimating the treatment effect separately for each site. I also show that when predictive uncertainty is ignored, the treatment impact for the Riverside sites is significant, but when predictive uncertainty is considered, the impact for these sites is insignificant. Finally, I demonstrate that the model extrapolates site effects with reasonable accuracy when the site being predicted does not differ substantially from the sites already observed. For example, the San Diego treatment effects could have been predicted based on their site characteristics, but the Riverside effects are consistently underpredicted.
Download InfoTo our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by American Statistical Association in its journal Journal of Business and Economic Statistics.
Volume (Year): 21 (2003)
Issue (Month): 1 (January)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.amstat.org/publications/jbes/index.cfm?fuseaction=main
Other versions of this item:
- Rajeev H. Dehejia, 2002. "Was there a Riverside miracle? An hierarchical framework for evaluating programs with grouped data," Discussion Papers 0102-15, Columbia University, Department of Economics.
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Carlos A. Flores & Oscar A. Mitnik, 2011. "Comparing Treatments across Labor Markets: An Assessment of Nonexperimental Multiple-Treatment Strategies," Working Papers 2011-10, University of Miami, Department of Economics.
- Guido W. Imbens & Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2009.
"Recent Developments in the Econometrics of Program Evaluation,"
Journal of Economic Literature,
American Economic Association, vol. 47(1), pages 5-86, March.
- Imbens, Guido W. & Wooldridge, Jeffrey M., 2008. "Recent Developments in the Econometrics of Program Evaluation," IZA Discussion Papers 3640, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
- Guido Imbens & Jeffrey Wooldridge, 2008. "Recent developments in the econometrics of program evaluation," CeMMAP working papers CWP24/08, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
- Guido M. Imbens & Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2008. "Recent Developments in the Econometrics of Program Evaluation," NBER Working Papers 14251, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Arpino, Bruno & Mealli, Fabrizia, 2011.
"The specification of the propensity score in multilevel observational studies,"
Computational Statistics & Data Analysis,
Elsevier, vol. 55(4), pages 1770-1780, April.
- Arpino, Bruno & Mealli, Fabrizia, 2008. "The specification of the propensity score in multilevel observational studies," MPRA Paper 17407, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Bruno Arpino & Fabrizia Mealli, 2008. "The specification of the propensity score in multilevel observational studies," Working Papers 006, "Carlo F. Dondena" Centre for Research on Social Dynamics (DONDENA), Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi.
- Donald M. Pianto & Sergei Soares, 2004. "Use Of Survey Design For The Evaluation Of Social Programs: The Pnad And Peti," Anais do XXXII Encontro Nacional de Economia [Proceedings of the 32th Brazilian Economics Meeting] 133, ANPEC - Associação Nacional dos Centros de Pósgraduação em Economia [Brazilian Association of Graduate Programs in Economics].
- V. Joseph Hotz & Guido W. Imbens & Jacob A. Klerman, 2006.
"Evaluating the Differential Effects of Alternative Welfare-to-Work Training Components: A Reanalysis of the California GAIN Program,"
Journal of Labor Economics,
University of Chicago Press, vol. 24(3), pages 521-566, July.
- V. Joseph Hotz & Guido W. Imbens & Jacob A. Klerman, 2006. "Evaluating the Differential Effects of Alternative Welfare-to-Work Training Components: A Re-Analysis of the California GAIN Program," NBER Working Papers 11939, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Dehejia, Rajeev, 2013. "The porous dialectic: Experimental and non-experimental methods in development economics," Working Paper Series UNU-WIDER Research Paper , World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Christopher F. Baum).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.