IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/anname/v628y2010i1p189-199.html

Strategies for Dealing with the Problem of Non-overlapping Units of Assignment and Outcome Measurement in Field Experiments

Author

Listed:
  • Ana L. De La O

    (Yale University)

  • Daniel Rubenson

    (Ryerson University, Toronto)

Abstract

Researchers conducting field experiments are sometimes faced with the challenge of analyzing field experiment results when the unit of assignment does not coincide with the unit of outcome measurement. For example, in electoral research, election results may be reported at a level of geography defined by electoral law, while the assignment of treatment can be made only at a level of geography different from this. Using examples from field experiments conducted in Canada and Mexico, we describe this problem and its consequences for analysis and interpretation of field experiment data and results. We also offer a number of practical solutions analysts can employ when faced with non-overlapping units of assignment and outcome measure in field experiments.

Suggested Citation

  • Ana L. De La O & Daniel Rubenson, 2010. "Strategies for Dealing with the Problem of Non-overlapping Units of Assignment and Outcome Measurement in Field Experiments," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 628(1), pages 189-199, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:anname:v:628:y:2010:i:1:p:189-199
    DOI: 10.1177/0002716209351525
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0002716209351525
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0002716209351525?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brunell, Thomas L. & DiNardo, John, 2004. "A Propensity Score Reweighting Approach to Estimating the Partisan Effects of Full Turnout in American Presidential Elections," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(1), pages 28-45, January.
    2. Jinyong Hahn, 1998. "On the Role of the Propensity Score in Efficient Semiparametric Estimation of Average Treatment Effects," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(2), pages 315-332, March.
    3. Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2004. "Estimating average partial effects under conditional moment independence assumptions," CeMMAP working papers 03/04, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    4. Hastings, Justine S. & Kane, Thomas J. & Staiger, Douglas O. & Weinstein, Jeffrey M., 2007. "The effect of randomized school admissions on voter participation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(5-6), pages 915-937, June.
    5. Guido W. Imbens, 2004. "Nonparametric Estimation of Average Treatment Effects Under Exogeneity: A Review," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 86(1), pages 4-29, February.
    6. Ho, Daniel E. & Imai, Kosuke & King, Gary & Stuart, Elizabeth A., 2007. "Matching as Nonparametric Preprocessing for Reducing Model Dependence in Parametric Causal Inference," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(3), pages 199-236, July.
    7. Keisuke Hirano & Guido W. Imbens & Geert Ridder, 2003. "Efficient Estimation of Average Treatment Effects Using the Estimated Propensity Score," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 71(4), pages 1161-1189, July.
    8. Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 1999. "Asymptotic Properties of Weighted M-Estimators for Variable Probability Samples," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 67(6), pages 1385-1406, November.
    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. Jones A.M & Rice N, 2009. "Econometric Evaluation of Health Policies," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 09/09, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    2. Guido W. Imbens & Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2009. "Recent Developments in the Econometrics of Program Evaluation," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(1), pages 5-86, March.
    3. Hainmueller, Jens, 2012. "Entropy Balancing for Causal Effects: A Multivariate Reweighting Method to Produce Balanced Samples in Observational Studies," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(1), pages 25-46, January.
    4. Huber, Martin & Lechner, Michael & Wunsch, Conny, 2010. "How to Control for Many Covariates? Reliable Estimators Based on the Propensity Score," IZA Discussion Papers 5268, IZA Network @ LISER.
    5. Zeqin Liu & Zongwu Cai & Ying Fang & Ming Lin, 2019. "Statistical Analysis and Evaluation of Macroeconomic Policies: A Selective Review," WORKING PAPERS SERIES IN THEORETICAL AND APPLIED ECONOMICS 201904, University of Kansas, Department of Economics, revised Mar 2019.
    6. Huber, Martin & Lechner, Michael & Wunsch, Conny, 2013. "The performance of estimators based on the propensity score," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 175(1), pages 1-21.
    7. Bryan S. Graham & Cristine Campos De Xavier Pinto & Daniel Egel, 2012. "Inverse Probability Tilting for Moment Condition Models with Missing Data," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 79(3), pages 1053-1079.
    8. Hugo Bodory & Lorenzo Camponovo & Martin Huber & Michael Lechner, 2020. "The Finite Sample Performance of Inference Methods for Propensity Score Matching and Weighting Estimators," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(1), pages 183-200, January.
    9. Han, Chirok & Kim, Beomsoo, 2011. "A GMM interpretation of the paradox in the inverse probability weighting estimation of the average treatment effect on the treated," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 110(2), pages 163-165, February.
    10. Gunther Bensch & Jörg Peters, 2013. "Alleviating Deforestation Pressures? Impacts of Improved Stove Dissemination on Charcoal Consumption in Urban Senegal," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 89(4), pages 676-698.
    11. 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.
    12. Jochen Kluve & Boris Augurzky, 2007. "Assessing the performance of matching algorithms when selection into treatment is strong," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(3), pages 533-557.
    13. Hao Dong & Daniel L. Millimet, 2020. "Propensity Score Weighting with Mismeasured Covariates: An Application to Two Financial Literacy Interventions," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-24, November.
    14. Prokhorov, Artem & Schmidt, Peter, 2009. "GMM redundancy results for general missing data problems," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 151(1), pages 47-55, July.
    15. Fan, Yanqin & Shi, Xuetao & Tao, Jing, 2023. "Partial identification and inference in moment models with incomplete data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 235(2), pages 418-443.
    16. Justine S. Hastings & Christopher A. Neilson & Seth D. Zimmerman, 2012. "The Effect of School Choice on Intrinsic Motivation and Academic Outcomes," Working Papers 2012-3, Princeton University. Economics Department..
    17. Michael Lechner & Anthony Strittmatter, 2019. "Practical procedures to deal with common support problems in matching estimation," Econometric Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(2), pages 193-207, February.
    18. Frölich, Markus & Huber, Martin & Wiesenfarth, Manuel, 2017. "The finite sample performance of semi- and non-parametric estimators for treatment effects and policy evaluation," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 91-102.
    19. Toru Kitagawa & Chris Muris, 2013. "Covariate selection and model averaging in semiparametric estimation of treatment effects," CeMMAP working papers CWP61/13, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    20. Rahul Singh & Liyuan Xu & Arthur Gretton, 2020. "Kernel Methods for Causal Functions: Dose, Heterogeneous, and Incremental Response Curves," Papers 2010.04855, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2022.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:sae:anname:v:628:y:2010:i:1:p:189-199. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.