IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/polals/v17y2009i04p400-417_01.html

Testing the Accuracy of Regression Discontinuity Analysis Using Experimental Benchmarks

Author

Listed:
  • Green, Donald P.
  • Leong, Terence Y.
  • Kern, Holger L.
  • Gerber, Alan S.
  • Larimer, Christopher W.

Abstract

Regression discontinuity (RD) designs enable researchers to estimate causal effects using observational data. These causal effects are identified at the point of discontinuity that distinguishes those observations that do or do not receive the treatment. One challenge in applying RD in practice is that data may be sparse in the immediate vicinity of the discontinuity. Expanding the analysis to observations outside this immediate vicinity may improve the statistical precision with which treatment effects are estimated, but including more distant observations also increases the risk of bias. Model specification is another source of uncertainty; as the bandwidth around the cutoff point expands, linear approximations may break down, requiring more flexible functional forms. Using data from a large randomized experiment conducted by Gerber, Green, and Larimer (2008), this study attempts to recover an experimental benchmark using RD and assesses the uncertainty introduced by various aspects of model and bandwidth selection. More generally, we demonstrate how experimental benchmarks can be used to gauge and improve the reliability of RD analyses.

Suggested Citation

  • Green, Donald P. & Leong, Terence Y. & Kern, Holger L. & Gerber, Alan S. & Larimer, Christopher W., 2009. "Testing the Accuracy of Regression Discontinuity Analysis Using Experimental Benchmarks," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(4), pages 400-417.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:polals:v:17:y:2009:i:04:p:400-417_01
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1047198700012249/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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:cup:polals:v:17:y:2009:i:04:p:400-417_01. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/pan .

    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.