IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ucd/wpaper/201802.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Inference with difference-in-differences with a small number of groups: a review, simulation study and empirical application using SHARE data

Author

Listed:
  • Slawa Rokicki

    (Geary Institute for Public Policy, University College Dublin)

  • Jessica Cohen

    (Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA.)

  • Günther Fink

    (Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute and University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland)

  • Joshua A. Salomon

    (Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA.)

  • Mary Beth Landrum

    (Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA)

Abstract

Background - Difference-in-differences (DID) estimation has become increasingly popular as an approach to evaluate the effect of a group-level policy on individual-level outcomes. Several statistical methodologies have been proposed to correct for the within-group correlation of model errors resulting from the clustering of data. Little is known about how well these corrections perform with the often small number of groups observed in health research using longitudinal data. Methods - First, we review the most commonly used modelling solutions in DID estimation for panel data, including generalized estimating equations (GEE), permutation tests, clustered standard errors (CSE), wild cluster bootstrapping, and aggregation. Second, we compare the empirical coverage rates and power of these methods using a Monte Carlo simulation study in scenarios in which we vary the degree of error correlation, the group size balance, and the proportion of treated groups. Third, we provide an empirical example using the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE). Results - When the number of groups is small, CSE are systematically biased downwards in scenarios when data are unbalanced or when there is a low proportion of treated groups. This can result in over-rejection of the null even when data are composed of up to 50 groups. Aggregation, permutation tests, bias-adjusted GEE and wild cluster bootstrap produce coverage rates close to the nominal rate for almost all scenarios, though GEE may suffer from low power. Conclusions - In DID estimation with a small number of groups, analysis using aggregation, permutation tests, wild cluster bootstrap, or bias-adjusted GEE is recommended.

Suggested Citation

  • Slawa Rokicki & Jessica Cohen & Günther Fink & Joshua A. Salomon & Mary Beth Landrum, 2018. "Inference with difference-in-differences with a small number of groups: a review, simulation study and empirical application using SHARE data," Working Papers 201802, Geary Institute, University College Dublin.
  • Handle: RePEc:ucd:wpaper:201802
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ucd.ie/geary/static/publications/workingpapers/gearywp201802.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2018
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Markus M. Mobius & Tanya S. Rosenblat, 2006. "Why Beauty Matters," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, pages 222-235.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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:ucd:wpaper:201802. 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: (Geary Tech). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/geucdie.html .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.