The performance of sample selection estimators to control for attrition bias
Sample attrition is a potential source of selection bias in experimental, as well as non-experimental programme evaluation. For labour market outcomes, such as employment status and earnings, missing data problems caused by attrition can be circumvented by the collection of follow-up data from administrative registers. For most non-labour market outcomes, however, investigators must rely on participants' willingness to co-operate in keeping detailed follow-up records and statistical correction procedures to identify and adjust for attrition bias. This paper combines survey and register data from a Norwegian randomized field trial to evaluate the performance of parametric and semi-parametric sample selection estimators commonly used to correct for attrition bias. The considered estimators work well in terms of producing point estimates of treatment effects close to the experimental benchmark estimates. Results are sensitive to exclusion restrictions. The analysis also demonstrates an inherent paradox in the 'common support' approach, which prescribes exclusion from the analysis of observations outside of common support for the selection probability. The more important treatment status is as a determinant of attrition, the larger is the proportion of treated with support for the selection probability outside the range, for which comparison with untreated counterparts is possible. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Volume (Year): 10 (2001)
Issue (Month): 5 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749|
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.:
- repec:att:wimass:9001 is not listed on IDEAS
- Bratberg, Espen & Grasdal, Astrid & Risa, Alf Erling, 2002.
" Evaluating Social Policy by Experimental and Nonexperimental Methods,"
Scandinavian Journal of Economics,
Wiley Blackwell, vol. 104(1), pages 147-71.
- Bratberg, E. & Grasdal, A. & Risa, A.E., 2000. "Evaluating Social Policy by Experimental and Nonexperimental Methods," Norway; Department of Economics, University of Bergen 1700, Department of Economics, University of Bergen.
- Heckman, James, 2013.
"Sample selection bias as a specification error,"
Publishing House "SINERGIA PRESS", vol. 31(3), pages 129-137.
- James Heckman & Hidehiko Ichimura & Jeffrey Smith & Petra Todd, 1998.
"Characterizing Selection Bias Using Experimental Data,"
Econometric Society, vol. 66(5), pages 1017-1098, September.
- James Heckman & Hidehiko Ichimura & Jeffrey Smith & Petra Todd, 1998. "Characterizing Selection Bias Using Experimental Data," NBER Working Papers 6699, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- LaLonde, Robert J, 1986. "Evaluating the Econometric Evaluations of Training Programs with Experimental Data," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(4), pages 604-20, September.
- Dolton, Peter & O'Neill, Donal, 1996. "Unemployment Duration and the Restart Effect: Some Experimental Evidence," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 106(435), pages 387-400, March.
- Manski, Charles F., 1975. "Maximum score estimation of the stochastic utility model of choice," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 205-228, August.
- Friedlander, Daniel & Robins, Philip K, 1995. "Evaluating Program Evaluations: New Evidence on Commonly Used Nonexperimental Methods," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(4), pages 923-37, September.
- 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 S29-59, Supplemen.
- Tomas Philipson & Larry V. Hedges, 1998. "Subject Evaluation in Social Experiments," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(2), pages 381-408, March.
- Lee, Lung-Fei, 1984. "Tests for the Bivariate Normal Distribution in Econometric Models with Selectivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(4), pages 843-63, July.
- repec:att:wimass:8909 is not listed on IDEAS
- James J. Heckman, 1989.
"Choosing Among Alternative Nonexperimental Methods for Estimating the Impact of Social Programs: The Case of Manpower Training,"
NBER Working Papers
2861, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Heckman, J.J. & Hotz, V.J., 1988. "Choosing Among Alternative Nonexperimental Methods For Estimating The Impact Of Social Programs: The Case Of Manpower Training," University of Chicago - Economics Research Center 88-12, Chicago - Economics Research Center.
- Hausman, Jerry A & Wise, David A, 1979. "Attrition Bias in Experimental and Panel Data: The Gary Income Maintenance Experiment," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 455-73, March.
- Newey, Whitney K & Powell, James L & Walker, James R, 1990.
"Semiparametric Estimation of Selection Models: Some Empirical Results,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 80(2), pages 324-28, May.
- 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.
- Gary Burtless, 1995. "The Case for Randomized Field Trials in Economic and Policy Research," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 9(2), pages 63-84, Spring.
- Robins, Philip K & West, Richard W, 1986. "Sample Attrition and Labor Supply Response in Experimental Panel Data: A Study of Alternative Correction Procedures," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 4(3), pages 329-38, July.
- Chesher, Andrew & Irish, Margaret, 1987. "Residual analysis in the grouped and censored normal linear model," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1-2), pages 33-61.
- Manski, Charles F, 1990.
"Nonparametric Bounds on Treatment Effects,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 80(2), pages 319-23, May.
- Thomas Fraker & Rebecca Maynard, 1987. "The Adequacy of Comparison Group Designs for Evaluations of Employment-Related Programs," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 22(2), pages 194-227.
- Newey, Whitney K., 1999. "Consistency of two-step sample selection estimators despite misspecification of distribution," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 129-132, May.
- James J. Heckman & Jeffrey A. Smith, 1995. "Assessing the Case for Social Experiments," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 9(2), pages 85-110, Spring.
- 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.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:10:y:2001:i:5:p:385-398. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing)or (Christopher F. Baum)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.