IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/evarev/v19y1995i1p39-63.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reports of the Death of Regression-Discontinuity Analysis are Greatly Exaggerated

Author

Listed:
  • Charles S. Reichardt

    (University of Denver)

  • William M.K. Trochim

    (Cornell University)

  • Joseph C. Cappelleri

    (New England Medical Center)

Abstract

Stanley (1991) argues that both random measurement error in the pretest and treatment-effect interactions bias the estimate of the treatment effect when multiple regression is used to analyze the data from a regression-discontinuity design (RDD). Stanley also argues that these biases are so severe that they should cause researchers to consider using statistical procedures other than regression analysis. The authors of the present article disagree. Curvilinearity in the regression of the posttest on pretest scores can be difficult to model, can bias the regression analysis of data from the RDD if not modeled correctly, and therefore should cause researchers to consider alternatives to regression analysis. If the regression surfaces are linear, however, unbiased estimates can be obtained easily via regression analysis, whether or not either random measurement error in the pretest or treatment-effect interactions are present. Improving upon regression analysis is a worthy goal but requires understanding just what are and are not the weaknesses of the method. In addressing these issues, this article elucidates some of the general principles that underlie the use of multiple regression to analyze data from the RDD quasi-experiment.

Suggested Citation

  • Charles S. Reichardt & William M.K. Trochim & Joseph C. Cappelleri, 1995. "Reports of the Death of Regression-Discontinuity Analysis are Greatly Exaggerated," Evaluation Review, , vol. 19(1), pages 39-63, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:evarev:v:19:y:1995:i:1:p:39-63
    DOI: 10.1177/0193841X9501900102
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0193841X9501900102
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0193841X9501900102?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. T.D. Stanley, 1991. ""Regression-Discontinuity Design" By Any Other Name Might Be Less Problematic," Evaluation Review, , vol. 15(5), pages 605-624, October.
    2. Joseph C. Cappelleri & William M.K. Trochim & T.D. Stanley & Charles S. Reichardt, 1991. "Random Measurement Error Does Not Bias the Treatment Effect Estimate in the Regression-Discontinuity Design," Evaluation Review, , vol. 15(4), pages 395-419, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lee Myoung-Jae, 2017. "Regression Discontinuity with Errors in the Running Variable: Effect on Truthful Margin," Journal of Econometric Methods, De Gruyter, vol. 6(1), pages 1-8, January.
    2. T.D. Stanley, 1991. ""Regression-Discontinuity Design" By Any Other Name Might Be Less Problematic," Evaluation Review, , vol. 15(5), pages 605-624, October.
    3. Jin-young Choi & Myoung-jae Lee, 2017. "Regression discontinuity: review with extensions," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 58(4), pages 1217-1246, December.
    4. William M.K. Trochim & Joseph C. Cappelleri & Charles S. Reichardt, 1991. "Random Measurement Error Does Not Bias the Treatment Effect Estimate in the Regression-Discontinuity Design," Evaluation Review, , vol. 15(5), pages 571-604, October.
    5. Joseph C. Cappelleri & Richard B. Darlington & William M.K. Trochim, 1994. "Power Analysis of Cutoff-Based Randomized Clinical Trials," Evaluation Review, , vol. 18(2), pages 141-152, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:evarev:v:19:y:1995:i:1:p:39-63. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.