IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/polals/v24y2016i03p395-403_01.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Research Note: A More Powerful Test Statistic for Reasoning about Interference between Units

Author

Listed:
  • Bowers, Jake
  • Fredrickson, Mark M.
  • Aronow, Peter M.

Abstract

Bowers, Fredrickson, and Panagopoulos (2013, Reasoning about interference between units: A general framework, Political Analysis 21(1):97–124; henceforth BFP) showed that one could use Fisher's randomization-based hypothesis testing framework to assess counterfactual causal models of treatment propagation and spillover across social networks. This research note improves the statistical inference presented in BFP (2013) by substituting a test statistic based on a sum of squared residuals and incorporating information about the fixed network for the simple Kolmogorov–Smirnov test statistic (Hollander 1999, section 5.4) they used. This note incrementally improves the application of BFP's “reasoning about interference†approach. We do not offer general results about test statistics for multi-parameter causal models on social networks here, but instead hope to stimulate further, and deeper, work on test statistics and sharp hypothesis testing.

Suggested Citation

  • Bowers, Jake & Fredrickson, Mark M. & Aronow, Peter M., 2016. "Research Note: A More Powerful Test Statistic for Reasoning about Interference between Units," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(3), pages 395-403, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:polals:v:24:y:2016:i:03:p:395-403_01
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1047198700014108/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Shaina J. Alexandria & Michael G. Hudgens & Allison E. Aiello, 2023. "Assessing intervention effects in a randomized trial within a social network," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 79(2), pages 1409-1419, June.

    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:24:y:2016:i:03:p:395-403_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.