IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ucr/wpaper/201919.html

Testing for Attrition Bias in Field Experiments

Author

Listed:
  • Sarojini Hirshleifer

    (Department of Economics, University of California Riverside)

  • Dalia Ghanem

    (UC Davis)

  • Karen Ortiz-Becerra

    (UC Davis)

Abstract

We approach attrition in field experiments with baseline outcome data as an identification problem in a panel model. A systematic review of the literature indicates that there is no consensus on how to test for attrition bias. We establish identifying assumptions for treatment effects for both the respondent subpopulation and the study population. We then derive their sharp testable implications on the baseline outcome distribution and propose randomization procedures to test them. We demonstrate that the most commonly used test does not control size in general when internal validity holds. Simulations and applications illustrate the empirical relevance of our analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • Sarojini Hirshleifer & Dalia Ghanem & Karen Ortiz-Becerra, 2019. "Testing for Attrition Bias in Field Experiments," Working Papers 201919, University of California at Riverside, Department of Economics, revised Aug 2019.
    • Handle: RePEc:ucr:wpaper:201919
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://economics.ucr.edu/repec/ucr/wpaper/201919.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2019
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://economics.ucr.edu/repec/ucr/wpaper/201919R.pdf
    File Function: Revised version, 2019
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Tarek Azzam & Michael Bates & David Fairris, 2019. "Do Learning Communities Increase First Year College Retention? Testing Sample Selection and External Validity of Randomized Control Trials," Working Papers 202002, University of California at Riverside, Department of Economics.
    2. Ben Weidmann & Luke Miratrix, 2021. "Missing, presumed different: Quantifying the risk of attrition bias in education evaluations," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 184(2), pages 732-760, April.
    3. Guigonan S. Adjognon & Daan van Soest & Jonas Guthoff, 2021. "Reducing Hunger with Payments for Environmental Services (PES): Experimental Evidence from Burkina Faso," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(3), pages 831-857, May.
    4. Fulya Ersoy, 2021. "Returns to effort: experimental evidence from an online language platform," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(3), pages 1047-1073, September.
    5. Annie Alcid & Erwin Bulte & Robert Lensink & Aussi Sayinzoga & Mark Treurniet, 2023. "Short- and Medium-term Impacts of Employability Training: Evidence from a Randomised Field Experiment in Rwanda," Journal of African Economies, Centre for the Study of African Economies, vol. 32(3), pages 296-328.
    6. Rafkin, Charlie & Shreekumar, Advik & Vautrey, Pierre-Luc, 2021. "When guidance changes: Government stances and public beliefs," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C12 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Hypothesis Testing: General
    • C21 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Cross-Sectional Models; Spatial Models; Treatment Effect Models
    • C33 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Models with Panel Data; Spatio-temporal Models
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ucr:wpaper:201919. 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: Kelvin Mac (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deucrus.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.