IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2304.01141.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Testing for idiosyncratic Treatment Effect Heterogeneity

Author

Listed:
  • Jaime Ramirez-Cuellar

Abstract

This paper provides asymptotically valid tests for the null hypothesis of no treatment effect heterogeneity. Importantly, I consider the presence of heterogeneity that is not explained by observed characteristics, or so-called idiosyncratic heterogeneity. When examining this heterogeneity, common statistical tests encounter a nuisance parameter problem in the average treatment effect which renders the asymptotic distribution of the test statistic dependent on that parameter. I propose an asymptotically valid test that circumvents the estimation of that parameter using the empirical characteristic function. A simulation study illustrates not only the test's validity but its higher power in rejecting a false null as compared to current tests. Furthermore, I show the method's usefulness through its application to a microfinance experiment in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In this experiment and for outcomes related to loan take-up and self-employment, the tests suggest that treatment effect heterogeneity does not seem to be completely accounted for by baseline characteristics. For those outcomes, researchers could potentially try to collect more baseline characteristics to inspect the remaining treatment effect heterogeneity, and potentially, improve treatment targeting.

Suggested Citation

  • Jaime Ramirez-Cuellar, 2023. "Testing for idiosyncratic Treatment Effect Heterogeneity," Papers 2304.01141, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2304.01141
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2304.01141
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James J. Heckman & Jeffrey Smith & Nancy Clements, 1997. "Making The Most Out Of Programme Evaluations and Social Experiments: Accounting For Heterogeneity in Programme Impacts," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 64(4), pages 487-535.
    2. Toru Kitagawa & Aleksey Tetenov, 2018. "Who Should Be Treated? Empirical Welfare Maximization Methods for Treatment Choice," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 86(2), pages 591-616, March.
    3. Stefan Wager & Susan Athey, 2018. "Estimation and Inference of Heterogeneous Treatment Effects using Random Forests," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 113(523), pages 1228-1242, July.
    4. Hansen, Bruce E., 2008. "Uniform Convergence Rates For Kernel Estimation With Dependent Data," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(3), pages 726-748, June.
    5. Chen, Xiaohong, 2007. "Large Sample Sieve Estimation of Semi-Nonparametric Models," Handbook of Econometrics, in: J.J. Heckman & E.E. Leamer (ed.), Handbook of Econometrics, edition 1, volume 6, chapter 76, Elsevier.
    6. Breusch, T S & Pagan, A R, 1979. "A Simple Test for Heteroscedasticity and Random Coefficient Variation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(5), pages 1287-1294, September.
    7. Marianne P. Bitler & Jonah B. Gelbach & Hilary W. Hoynes, 2017. "Can Variation in Subgroups' Average Treatment Effects Explain Treatment Effect Heterogeneity? Evidence from a Social Experiment," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 99(4), pages 683-697, July.
    8. G. I. Rivas-Martínez & M. D. Jiménez-Gamero & J. L. Moreno-Rebollo, 2019. "A two-sample test for the error distribution in nonparametric regression based on the characteristic function," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 60(4), pages 1369-1395, August.
    9. Soohyung Lee & Azeem M. Shaikh, 2014. "Multiple Testing And Heterogeneous Treatment Effects: Re‐Evaluating The Effect Of Progresa On School Enrollment," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(4), pages 612-626, June.
    10. Anna, Petrenko, 2016. "Мaркування готової продукції як складова частина інформаційного забезпечення маркетингової діяльності підприємств овочепродуктового підкомплексу," Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal, Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal, vol. 2(1), March.
    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. Kyle Colangelo & Ying-Ying Lee, 2019. "Double debiased machine learning nonparametric inference with continuous treatments," CeMMAP working papers CWP72/19, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    2. Kyle Colangelo & Ying-Ying Lee, 2019. "Double debiased machine learning nonparametric inference with continuous treatments," CeMMAP working papers CWP54/19, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    3. Kyle Colangelo & Ying-Ying Lee, 2020. "Double Debiased Machine Learning Nonparametric Inference with Continuous Treatments," Papers 2004.03036, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2023.
    4. Buhl-Wiggers, Julie & Kerwin, Jason & Muñoz-Morales, Juan S. & Smith, Jeffrey A. & Thornton, Rebecca L., 2020. "Some Children Left Behind: Variation in the Effects of an Educational Intervention," IZA Discussion Papers 13598, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    5. Chung, EunYi & Olivares, Mauricio, 2021. "Permutation test for heterogeneous treatment effects with a nuisance parameter," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 225(2), pages 148-174.
    6. Steven F. Lehrer & R. Vincent Pohl & Kyungchul Song, 2022. "Multiple Testing and the Distributional Effects of Accountability Incentives in Education," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(4), pages 1552-1568, October.
    7. Augustine Denteh & Helge Liebert, 2022. "Who Increases Emergency Department Use? New Insights from the Oregon Health Insurance Experiment," Working Papers 2201, Tulane University, Department of Economics.
    8. Alejandro Sanchez-Becerra, 2023. "Robust inference for the treatment effect variance in experiments using machine learning," Papers 2306.03363, arXiv.org.
    9. Nathan Kallus, 2022. "Treatment Effect Risk: Bounds and Inference," Papers 2201.05893, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2022.
    10. Marianne Bertrand & Bruno Crépon & Alicia Marguerie & Patrick Premand, 2021. "Do Workfare Programs Live Up to Their Promises? Experimental Evidence from Cote D’Ivoire," NBER Working Papers 28664, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Athey, Susan & Imbens, Guido W., 2019. "Machine Learning Methods Economists Should Know About," Research Papers 3776, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    12. Strittmatter, Anthony, 2023. "What is the value added by using causal machine learning methods in a welfare experiment evaluation?," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    13. Jeffrey Smith, 2022. "Treatment Effect Heterogeneity," Evaluation Review, , vol. 46(5), pages 652-677, October.
    14. Christopher Adjaho & Timothy Christensen, 2022. "Externally Valid Policy Choice," Papers 2205.05561, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2023.
    15. Chen, Le-Yu & Lee, Sokbae, 2018. "Best subset binary prediction," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 206(1), pages 39-56.
    16. Su, Liangjun & Lu, Xun, 2013. "Nonparametric dynamic panel data models: Kernel estimation and specification testing," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 176(2), pages 112-133.
    17. Steven F. Lehrer & R. Vincent Pohl & Kyungchul Song, 2016. "Targeting Policies: Multiple Testing and Distributional Treatment Effects," NBER Working Papers 22950, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Chunrong Ai & Oliver Linton & Kaiji Motegi & Zheng Zhang, 2021. "A unified framework for efficient estimation of general treatment models," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(3), pages 779-816, July.
    19. Firpo, Sergio & Galvao, Antonio F. & Kobus, Martyna & Parker, Thomas & Rosa-Dias, Pedro, 2020. "Loss Aversion and the Welfare Ranking of Policy Interventions," IZA Discussion Papers 13176, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    20. Halbert White & Karim Chalak, 2013. "Identification and Identification Failure for Treatment Effects Using Structural Systems," Econometric Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(3), pages 273-317, November.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:arx:papers:2304.01141. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.