Three conditions under which experiments and observational studies produce comparable causal estimates: New findings from within-study comparisons
AbstractThis paper analyzes 12 recent within-study comparisons contrasting causal estimates from a randomized experiment with those from an observational study sharing the same treatment group. The aim is to test whether different causal estimates result when a counterfactual group is formed, either with or without random assignment, and when statistical adjustments for selection are made in the group from which random assignment is absent. We identify three studies comparing experiments and regression-discontinuity (RD) studies. They produce quite comparable causal estimates at points around the RD cutoff. We identify three other studies where the quasi-experiment involves careful intact group matching on the pretest. Despite the logical possibility of hidden bias in this instance, all three cases also reproduce their experimental estimates, especially if the match is geographically local. We then identify two studies where the treatment and nonrandomized comparison groups manifestly differ at pretest but where the selection process into treatment is completely or very plausibly known. Here too, experimental results are recreated. Two of the remaining studies result in correspondent experimental and nonexperimental results under some circumstances but not others, while two others produce different experimental and nonexperimental estimates, though in each case the observational study was poorly designed and analyzed. Such evidence is more promising than what was achieved in past within-study comparisons, most involving job training. Reasons for this difference are discussed. © 2008 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. in its journal Journal of Policy Analysis and Management.
Volume (Year): 27 (2008)
Issue (Month): 4 ()
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/34787/home
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- David McKenzie & John Gibson & Steven Stillman, 2010.
"How Important Is Selection? Experimental vs. Non-Experimental Measures of the Income Gains from Migration,"
Journal of the European Economic Association,
MIT Press, vol. 8(4), pages 913-945, 06.
- David McKenzie & Steven Stillman & John Gibson, 2010. "How Important is Selection? Experimental VS. Non‐Experimental Measures of the Income Gains from Migration," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 913-945, 06.
- McKenzie, David & Gibson, John & Stillman, Steven, 2006. "How Important Is Selection? Experimental vs. Non-Experimental Measures of the Income Gains from Migration," IZA Discussion Papers 2087, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
- Jeffrey Smith & Petra Todd, 2003.
"Does Matching Overcome Lalonde's Critique of Nonexperimental Estimators?,"
University of Western Ontario, CIBC Centre for Human Capital and Productivity Working Papers
20035, University of Western Ontario, CIBC Centre for Human Capital and Productivity.
- A. Smith, Jeffrey & E. Todd, Petra, 2005. "Does matching overcome LaLonde's critique of nonexperimental estimators?," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 125(1-2), pages 305-353.
- Cook, Thomas D., 2008. ""Waiting for Life to Arrive": A history of the regression-discontinuity design in Psychology, Statistics and Economics," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 142(2), pages 636-654, February.
- Heckman, James J & Ichimura, Hidehiko & Todd, Petra, 1998. "Matching as an Econometric Evaluation Estimator," Review of Economic Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(2), pages 261-94, April.
- James J. Heckman & Jeffrey A. Smith, 1995. "Assessing the Case for Social Experiments," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 9(2), pages 85-110, Spring.
- Wanjala, Bernadette M. & Muradian, Roldan, 2013. "Can Big Push Interventions Take Small-Scale Farmers out of Poverty? Insights from the Sauri Millennium Village in Kenya," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 147-160.
- Jeremy L. Hall, 2009. "Evidence-Based Practice and the Use of Information in State Agency Decision-Making," Working Papers 2009-10, University of Kentucky, Institute for Federalism and Intergovernmental Relations.
- Henrik Hansen & Ninja Ritter Klejnstrup & Ole Winckler Andersen, 2011. "A Comparison of Model-based and Design-based Impact Evaluations of Interventions in Developing Countries," IFRO Working Paper 2011/16, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
- Ron Zimmer & Brian Gill & Jonathon Attridge & Kaitlin Obenauf, 2013. "Charter School Authorizers and Student Achievement," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 7808, Mathematica Policy Research.
- Jiang, Miao & Foster, E. Michael & Gibson-Davis, Christina M., 2010. "The effect of WIC on breastfeeding: A new look at an established relationship," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 264-273, February.
- Peter M. Steiner, 2011. "Propensity Score Methods for Causal Inference: On the Relative Importance of Covariate Selection, Reliable Measurement, and Choice of Propensity Score Technique," Working Papers 09, AlmaLaurea Inter-University Consortium.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing) or (Christopher F. Baum).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.