Comparing principal stratification and selection models in parametric causal inference with nonignorable missingness
Two approaches for dealing with "endogenous selection" problems when estimating causal effects are considered. They are principal stratification and selection models. The main goal is to highlight similarities and differences between the two approaches, by investigating the different nature of their parametric hypotheses. The principal stratification approach focuses on information contained in specific subgroups of units. The aim is to produce valid inference conditional on such subgroups, without an a priori extension of the results to the whole population. Selection models, on the contrary, aim at estimating parameters that should be valid for the whole population, as if the data come from random sampling. A simulation study is conducted to show their different performances, with data generating processes coming from either approach. It is also argued that principal stratification is able to suggest alternative identification strategies not always easily translatable into assumptions of a selection model.
If 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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
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.:
- Donald B. Rubin, 2004. "Direct and Indirect Causal Effects via Potential Outcomes," Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, Danish Society for Theoretical Statistics;Finnish Statistical Society;Norwegian Statistical Association;Swedish Statistical Association, vol. 31(2), pages 161-170.
- Robinson, Peter M, 1988. "Root- N-Consistent Semiparametric Regression," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 56(4), pages 931-954, July.
- Honore, Bo E. & Kyriazidou, Ekaterini & Udry, Christopher, 1997.
"Estimation of Type 3 Tobit models using symmetric trimming and pairwise comparisons,"
Journal of Econometrics,
Elsevier, vol. 76(1-2), pages 107-128.
- Bo E. Honore & Ekaterini Kyriazidou & Christopher Udry, "undated". "Estimation of Type 3 Tobit Models using Symmetric Trimming and Pairwise Comparisons," Home Pages _001, Princeton University, Department of Economics.
- A. Mattei & F. Mealli, 2007. "Application of the Principal Stratification Approach to the Faenza Randomized Experiment on Breast Self-Examination," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 63(2), pages 437-446, 06.
- Ahn, Hyungtaik & Powell, James L., 1993. "Semiparametric estimation of censored selection models with a nonparametric selection mechanism," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 58(1-2), pages 3-29, July.
- Olsen, Randall J, 1980. "A Least Squares Correction for Selectivity Bias," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 48(7), pages 1815-1820, November.
- Lee, Lung-Fei, 1983. "Generalized Econometric Models with Selectivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 51(2), pages 507-512, March.
- Little, Roderick J A, 1985. "A Note about Models for Selectivity Bias," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 53(6), pages 1469-1474, November.
- Li, Qi & Wooldridge, Jeffrey M., 2002. "Semiparametric Estimation Of Partially Linear Models For Dependent Data With Generated Regressors," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(03), pages 625-645, June.
- Lee, Lung-fei, 1994. "Semiparametric two-stage estimation of sample selection models subject to Tobit-type selection rules," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 305-344, April.
- Lee, L-F., 1990. "Semiparametric Two Stage Estimation of Sample Selection Models Subject to Tobit-Type Selection Rules," Papers 256, Minnesota - Center for Economic Research.
- Lung-Fei Lee, 1982. "Some Approaches to the Correction of Selectivity Bias," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(3), pages 355-372.
- Heckman, James J, 1974. "Shadow Prices, Market Wages, and Labor Supply," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 42(4), pages 679-694, July.
- Francis Vella, 1998. "Estimating Models with Sample Selection Bias: A Survey," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 33(1), pages 127-169.
- Newey, Whitney K, 1990. "Semiparametric Efficiency Bounds," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 5(2), pages 99-135, April-Jun.
- Christofides, Louis N, et al, 2003. "Recent Two-Stage Sample Selection Procedures with an Application to the Gender Wage Gap," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 21(3), pages 396-405, July.
- Heckman, James J, 1990. "Varieties of Selection Bias," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(2), pages 313-318, May.
- Edward Vytlacil, 2002. "Independence, Monotonicity, and Latent Index Models: An Equivalence Result," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(1), pages 331-341, January.
- Barnard J. & Frangakis C.E. & Hill J.L. & Rubin D.B., 2003. "Principal Stratification Approach to Broken Randomized Experiments: A Case Study of School Choice Vouchers in New York City," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 98, pages 299-323, January.
- Pagan, Adrian & Vella, Frank, 1989. "Diagnostic Tests for Models Based on Individual Data: A Survey," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 4(S), pages 29-59, Supplemen. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)