[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fth/bereco/225.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Performance of Sample Selection Estimators to Control for Attrition Bias

Author

Listed:
  • Grasdal, A.
Abstract
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.

Suggested Citation

  • Grasdal, A., 2001. "The Performance of Sample Selection Estimators to Control for Attrition Bias," Norway; Department of Economics, University of Bergen 225, Department of Economics, University of Bergen.
    • Handle: RePEc:fth:bereco:225
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Manski, Charles F, 1990. "Nonparametric Bounds on Treatment Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(2), pages 319-323, May.
    2. 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.
    3. 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 324-328, May.
    4. 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.
    5. Tomas Philipson & Larry V. Hedges, 1998. "Subject Evaluation in Social Experiments," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(2), pages 381-408, March.
    6. 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.
    7. Espen Bratberg & Astrid Grasdal & Alf Erling Risa, 2002. "Evaluating Social Policy by Experimental and Nonexperimental Methods," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 104(1), pages 147-171, March.
    8. Lee, Lung-Fei, 1984. "Tests for the Bivariate Normal Distribution in Econometric Models with Selectivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(4), pages 843-863, July.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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 455-473, March.
    13. 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.
    14. 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 923-937, September.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. 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 329-338, July.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.
    21. 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 29-59, Supplemen.
    22. 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. Glenn W. Harrison & Morten I. Lau & Hong Il Yoo, 2020. "Risk Attitudes, Sample Selection, and Attrition in a Longitudinal Field Experiment," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 102(3), pages 552-568, July.
    2. Arndt Reichert & Harald Tauchmann, 2014. "When outcome heterogeneously matters for selection: a generalized selection correction estimator," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(7), pages 762-768, March.
    3. Chen, Yuanyuan & Feng, Shuaizhang & Han, Yujie, 2020. "The effect of primary school type on the high school opportunities of migrant children in China," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 325-338.
    4. Duflo, Esther & Glennerster, Rachel & Kremer, Michael, 2008. "Using Randomization in Development Economics Research: A Toolkit," Handbook of Development Economics, in: T. Paul Schultz & John A. Strauss (ed.), Handbook of Development Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 61, pages 3895-3962, Elsevier.
    5. Alison Snow Jones & David W. Richmond, 2006. "Causal effects of alcoholism on earnings: estimates from the NLSY," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(8), pages 849-871, August.
    6. repec:zbw:rwirep:0372 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Hernandez-Hernandez, Emilio & Sam, Abdoul G. & Gonzalez-Vega, Claudio & Chen, Joyce J., 2012. "Does the insurance effect of public and private transfers favor financial deepening? evidence from rural Nicaragua," MPRA Paper 38339, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Arndt Reichert & Harald Tauchmann, 2012. "When Outcome Heterogeneously Matters for Selection – A Generalized Selection Correction Estimator," Ruhr Economic Papers 0372, Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Universität Dortmund, Universität Duisburg-Essen.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Rothstein, Jesse & Von Wachter, Till, 2016. "Social Experiments in the Labor Market," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt7957p9g6, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    5. 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.
    6. Jeffrey Smith, 2000. "A Critical Survey of Empirical Methods for Evaluating Active Labor Market Policies," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics (SJES), Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics (SSES), vol. 136(III), pages 247-268, September.
    7. David H. Dean & Robert C. Dolan & Robert M. Schmidt, 1999. "Evaluating the Vocational Rehabilitation Program Using Longitudinal Data," Evaluation Review, , vol. 23(2), pages 162-189, April.
    8. Bryson, Alex & Dorsett, Richard & Purdon, Susan, 2002. "The use of propensity score matching in the evaluation of active labour market policies," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 4993, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    9. Michael Lechner, 2002. "Mikroökonometrische Evaluation arbeitsmarktpolitischer Massnahmen," University of St. Gallen Department of Economics working paper series 2002 2002-20, Department of Economics, University of St. Gallen.
    10. Claudia PIGINI, 2012. "Of Butterflies and Caterpillars: Bivariate Normality in the Sample Selection Model," Working Papers 377, Universita' Politecnica delle Marche (I), Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche e Sociali.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Smith, Jeffrey, 2000. "Evaluation aktiver Arbeitsmarktpolitik : Erfahrungen aus Nordamerika (Evaluating Avtive Labor Market Policies : Lessons from North America)," Mitteilungen aus der Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany], vol. 33(3), pages 345-356.
    14. Kaitlin Anderson & Gema Zamarro & Jennifer Steele & Trey Miller, 2021. "Comparing Performance of Methods to Deal With Differential Attrition in Randomized Experimental Evaluations," Evaluation Review, , vol. 45(1-2), pages 70-104, February.
    15. Justine Burns & Malcolm Kewsell & Rebecca Thornton, 2009. "Evaluating the Impact of Health Programmes," SALDRU Working Papers 40, Southern Africa Labour and Development Research Unit, University of Cape Town.
    16. James J. Heckman, 2005. "Micro Data, Heterogeneity and the Evaluation of Public Policy Part 2," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 49(1), pages 16-44, March.
    17. 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.
    18. Robert J. LaLonde, 2003. "Employment and Training Programs," NBER Chapters, in: Means-Tested Transfer Programs in the United States, pages 517-586, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Smith, Jeffrey, 2000. "Evaluation aktiver Arbeitsmarktpolitik : Erfahrungen aus Nordamerika (Evaluating Avtive Labor Market Policies : Lessons from North America)," Mitteilungen aus der Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany], vol. 33(3), pages 345-356.
    20. James J. Heckman, 1991. "Randomization and Social Policy Evaluation Revisited," NBER Technical Working Papers 0107, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    EVALUATION ; LABOUR MARKET ; EMPLOYMENT;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C13 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Estimation: General
    • J21 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demand and Supply of Labor - - - Labor Force and Employment, Size, and Structure

    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:fth:bereco:225. 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: Thomas Krichel (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iouibno.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.