IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mpr/mprres/0b22093bbd87457c9ae4125d00c2e0b0.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Methodological Notes Regarding the Impact Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Peter Z. Schochet
  • Ronald D'Amico
  • Jillian Berk
  • Nathan Wozny

Abstract

In a series of chapters, this report provides an overview of methodological issues pertaining to the impact analysis for the Evaluation of the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) Program.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter Z. Schochet & Ronald D'Amico & Jillian Berk & Nathan Wozny, "undated". "Methodological Notes Regarding the Impact Analysis," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 0b22093bbd87457c9ae4125d0, Mathematica Policy Research.
    • Handle: RePEc:mpr:mprres:0b22093bbd87457c9ae4125d00c2e0b0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mathematica.org/-/media/publications/pdfs/labor/taa_methodological_notes.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. LaLonde, Robert J, 1986. "Evaluating the Econometric Evaluations of Training Programs with Experimental Data," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(4), pages 604-620, September.
    2. Sarah Dolfin & Jillian Berk, "undated". "National Evaluation of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program: Characteristics of Workers Eligible Under the 2002 TAA Program and Their Early Program Experiences," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 100eb8ca0fb944d18c859f715, Mathematica Policy Research.
    3. James J. Heckman & Hidehiko Ichimura & Petra E. Todd, 1997. "Matching As An Econometric Evaluation Estimator: Evidence from Evaluating a Job Training Programme," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 64(4), pages 605-654.
    4. Peter Z. Schochet, "undated". "An Approach for Addressing the Multiple Testing Problem in Social Policy Impact Evaluations," Mathematica Policy Research Reports dbb4b45215a740819b08ca578, Mathematica Policy Research.
    5. Steven Glazerman & Dan M. Levy & David Myers, 2003. "Nonexperimental Versus Experimental Estimates of Earnings Impacts," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 589(1), pages 63-93, September.
    6. Peter R. Mueser & Kenneth R. Troske & Alexey Gorislavsky, 2007. "Using State Administrative Data to Measure Program Performance," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 89(4), pages 761-783, November.
    7. Peikes, Deborah N. & Moreno, Lorenzo & Orzol, Sean Michael, 2008. "Propensity Score Matching: A Note of Caution for Evaluators of Social Programs," The American Statistician, American Statistical Association, vol. 62, pages 222-231, August.
    8. repec:mpr:mprres:6574 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. repec:mpr:mprres:6097 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Peter Z. Schochet & John Burghardt & Sheena McConnell, "undated". "Does Job Corps Work? Impact Findings from the National Job Corps Study," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 5067e4907eba4a4881f510080, Mathematica Policy Research.
    11. repec:mpr:mprres:6988 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Alberto Abadie & Guido W. Imbens, 2002. "Simple and Bias-Corrected Matching Estimators for Average Treatment Effects," NBER Technical Working Papers 0283, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. repec:mpr:mprres:3694 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Heckman, James, 2013. "Sample selection bias as a specification error," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 31(3), pages 129-137.
    17. James Heckman & Hidehiko Ichimura & Jeffrey Smith & Petra Todd, 1998. "Characterizing Selection Bias Using Experimental Data," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(5), pages 1017-1098, September.
    18. Peter Z. Schochet & John Burghardt & Sheena McConnell, 2008. "Does Job Corps Work? Impact Findings from the National Job Corps Study," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(5), pages 1864-1886, December.
    19. Jose C. Galdo & Jeffrey Smith & Dan Black, 2008. "Bandwidth Selection and the Estimation of Treatment Effects with Unbalanced Data," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 91-92, pages 189-216.
    20. James J. Heckman & Hidehiko Ichimura & Petra Todd, 1998. "Matching As An Econometric Evaluation Estimator," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 65(2), pages 261-294.
    21. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Jillian Berk, "undated". "Characteristics of Trainees and Training Programs in the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) Program Under the 2002 Amendments," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 39f7a6badb374742bf53b9691, Mathematica Policy Research.
    2. Ronald D'Amico & Peter Z. Schochet, "undated". "The Evaluation of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program: A Synthesis of Major Findings," Mathematica Policy Research Reports c6b34445ad854f5d8178f580f, Mathematica Policy Research.
    3. Jillian Berk, 2012. "Understanding the Employment Outcomes of Trainees in the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) Program Under the 2002 Amendments," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 04e20e31b1014fc0baf9c3aa0, Mathematica Policy Research.

    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. repec:mpr:mprres:7734 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Flores, Carlos A. & Mitnik, Oscar A., 2009. "Evaluating Nonexperimental Estimators for Multiple Treatments: Evidence from Experimental Data," IZA Discussion Papers 4451, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    3. Lechner, Michael & Wunsch, Conny, 2013. "Sensitivity of matching-based program evaluations to the availability of control variables," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 111-121.
    4. Dettmann, E. & Becker, C. & Schmeißer, C., 2011. "Distance functions for matching in small samples," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 55(5), pages 1942-1960, May.
    5. A. Smith, Jeffrey & E. Todd, Petra, 2005. "Does matching overcome LaLonde's critique of nonexperimental estimators?," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 125(1-2), pages 305-353.
    6. Duncan Chaplin & Arif Mamun & Ali Protik & John Schurrer & Divya Vohra & Kristine Bos & Hannah Burak & Laura Meyer & Anca Dumitrescu & Christopher Ksoll & Thomas Cook, "undated". "Grid Electricity Expansion in Tanzania by MCC: Findings from a Rigorous Impact Evaluation, Final Report," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 144768f69008442e96369195e, Mathematica Policy Research.
    7. Steven Lehrer & Gregory Kordas, 2013. "Matching using semiparametric propensity scores," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 13-45, February.
    8. Chabé-Ferret, Sylvain, 2015. "Analysis of the bias of Matching and Difference-in-Difference under alternative earnings and selection processes," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 185(1), pages 110-123.
    9. Heckman, James J. & Lalonde, Robert J. & Smith, Jeffrey A., 1999. "The economics and econometrics of active labor market programs," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 31, pages 1865-2097, Elsevier.
    10. Vivian C. Wong & Peter M. Steiner & Kylie L. Anglin, 2018. "What Can Be Learned From Empirical Evaluations of Nonexperimental Methods?," Evaluation Review, , vol. 42(2), pages 147-175, April.
    11. Denis Conniffe & Vanessa Gash & Philip J. O'Connell, 2000. "Evaluating State Programmes - “Natural Experiments” and Propensity Scores," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 31(4), pages 283-308.
    12. Dettmann, Eva & Becker, Claudia & Schmeißer, Christian, 2010. "Is there a Superior Distance Function for Matching in Small Samples?," IWH Discussion Papers 3/2010, Halle Institute for Economic Research (IWH).
    13. 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.
    14. James Heckman & Salvador Navarro-Lozano, 2004. "Using Matching, Instrumental Variables, and Control Functions to Estimate Economic Choice Models," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 86(1), pages 30-57, February.
    15. Peter R. Mueser & Kenneth R. Troske & Alexey Gorislavsky, 2007. "Using State Administrative Data to Measure Program Performance," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 89(4), pages 761-783, November.
    16. Donald, Stephen G. & Hsu, Yu-Chin, 2014. "Estimation and inference for distribution functions and quantile functions in treatment effect models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 178(P3), pages 383-397.
    17. Richard Blundell & Monica Costa Dias, 2009. "Alternative Approaches to Evaluation in Empirical Microeconomics," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 44(3).
    18. Ferraro, Paul J. & Miranda, Juan José, 2014. "The performance of non-experimental designs in the evaluation of environmental programs: A design-replication study using a large-scale randomized experiment as a benchmark," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 107(PA), pages 344-365.
    19. 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.
    20. Deborah A. Cobb‐Clark & Thomas Crossley, 2003. "Econometrics for Evaluations: An Introduction to Recent Developments," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 79(247), pages 491-511, December.
    21. Zhao, Zhong, 2008. "Sensitivity of propensity score methods to the specifications," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 98(3), pages 309-319, March.

    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:mpr:mprres:0b22093bbd87457c9ae4125d00c2e0b0. 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: Joanne Pfleiderer or Cindy George (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/mathius.html .

    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.