IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/amstat/v73y2019i1p32-42.html

The Perils of Balance Testing in Experimental Design: Messy Analyses of Clean Data

Author

Listed:
  • Diana C. Mutz
  • Robin Pemantle
  • Philip Pham

Abstract

Widespread concern over the credibility of published results has led to scrutiny of statistical practices. We address one aspect of this problem that stems from the use of balance tests in conjunction with experimental data. When random assignment is botched, due either to mistakes in implementation or differential attrition, balance tests can be an important tool in determining whether to treat the data as observational versus experimental. Unfortunately, the use of balance tests has become commonplace in analyses of “clean” data, that is, data for which random assignment can be stipulated. Here, we show that balance tests can destroy the basis on which scientific conclusions are formed, and can lead to erroneous and even fraudulent conclusions. We conclude by advocating that scientists and journal editors resist the use of balance tests in all analyses of clean data. Supplementary materials for this article are available online

Suggested Citation

  • Diana C. Mutz & Robin Pemantle & Philip Pham, 2019. "The Perils of Balance Testing in Experimental Design: Messy Analyses of Clean Data," The American Statistician, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 73(1), pages 32-42, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:amstat:v:73:y:2019:i:1:p:32-42
    DOI: 10.1080/00031305.2017.1322143
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/00031305.2017.1322143
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/00031305.2017.1322143?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    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:taf:amstat:v:73:y:2019:i:1:p:32-42. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/UTAS20 .

    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.