[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iza/izadps/dp6751.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Please Call Again: Correcting Non-Response Bias in Treatment Effect Models

Author

Listed:
  • Behaghel, Luc

    (Paris School of Economics)

  • Crépon, Bruno

    (CREST)

  • Gurgand, Marc

    (Paris School of Economics)

  • Le Barbanchon, Thomas

    (Bocconi University)

Abstract
We propose a novel selectivity correction procedure to deal with survey attrition, at the crossroads of the "Heckit" and of the bounding approach of Lee (2009). As a substitute for the instrument needed in sample selectivity correction models, we use information on the number of attempts that were made to obtain response to the survey from each individual who responded. We obtain set identification, but if the number of attempts to reach each individual is high enough, we can come closer to point identification. We apply our sample selection correction in the context of a job-search experiment with low and unbalanced response rates.

Suggested Citation

  • Behaghel, Luc & Crépon, Bruno & Gurgand, Marc & Le Barbanchon, Thomas, 2012. "Please Call Again: Correcting Non-Response Bias in Treatment Effect Models," IZA Discussion Papers 6751, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    • Handle: RePEc:iza:izadps:dp6751
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://docs.iza.org/dp6751.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Luc Behaghel & Bruno Cr?pon & Marc Gurgand, 2014. "Private and Public Provision of Counseling to Job Seekers: Evidence from a Large Controlled Experiment," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 6(4), pages 142-174, October.
    2. James J. Heckman, 1976. "The Common Structure of Statistical Models of Truncation, Sample Selection and Limited Dependent Variables and a Simple Estimator for Such Models," NBER Chapters, in: Annals of Economic and Social Measurement, Volume 5, number 4, pages 475-492, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. John Fitzgerald & Peter Gottschalk & Robert Moffitt, 1998. "An Analysis of Sample Attrition in Panel Data: The Michigan Panel Study of Income Dynamics," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 33(2), pages 251-299.
    4. Horowitz, Joel L. & Manski, Charles F., 1998. "Censoring of outcomes and regressors due to survey nonresponse: Identification and estimation using weights and imputations," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 37-58, May.
    5. Charles F. Manski, 1989. "Anatomy of the Selection Problem," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 24(3), pages 343-360.
    6. Michael Kremer & Edward Miguel & Rebecca Thornton, 2009. "Incentives to Learn," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 91(3), pages 437-456, August.
    7. R. F. Engle & D. McFadden (ed.), 1986. "Handbook of Econometrics," Handbook of Econometrics, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 4, number 4.
    8. 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.
    9. Newey, Whitney K. & McFadden, Daniel, 1986. "Large sample estimation and hypothesis testing," Handbook of Econometrics, in: R. F. Engle & D. McFadden (ed.), Handbook of Econometrics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 36, pages 2111-2245, Elsevier.
    10. Edward Vytlacil, 2002. "Independence, Monotonicity, and Latent Index Models: An Equivalence Result," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(1), pages 331-341, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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:hal:pseose:halshs-01245539 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2002. "Inverse probability weighted M-estimators for sample selection, attrition, and stratification," Portuguese Economic Journal, Springer;Instituto Superior de Economia e Gestao, vol. 1(2), pages 117-139, August.
    3. Victor Chernozhukov & Ivan Fernandez-Val & Siyi Luo, 2023. "Distribution regression with sample selection and UK wage decomposition," CeMMAP working papers 09/23, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    4. 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.
    5. Esmeralda A. Ramalho & Richard J. Smith, 2013. "Discrete Choice Non-Response," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 80(1), pages 343-364.
    6. Arie Beresteanu & Francesca Molinari, 2008. "Asymptotic Properties for a Class of Partially Identified Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 76(4), pages 763-814, July.
    7. Peter Hull & Michal Kolesár & Christopher Walters, 2022. "Labor by design: contributions of David Card, Joshua Angrist, and Guido Imbens," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 124(3), pages 603-645, July.
    8. 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.
    9. Lewbel, Arthur, 2007. "Endogenous selection or treatment model estimation," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 141(2), pages 777-806, December.
    10. Richard Blundell & Monica Costa Dias, 2009. "Alternative Approaches to Evaluation in Empirical Microeconomics," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 44(3).
    11. Joo, Joonhwi & LaLonde, Robert J., 2014. "Testing for Selection Bias," IZA Discussion Papers 8455, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    12. Markus Frölich & Martin Huber, 2014. "Treatment Evaluation With Multiple Outcome Periods Under Endogeneity and Attrition," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 109(508), pages 1697-1711, December.
    13. Martin Huber, 2014. "Treatment Evaluation in the Presence of Sample Selection," Econometric Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(8), pages 869-905, November.
    14. Denis Conniffe & Vanessa Gash & Philip J., 2000. "Evaluating Programmes: Experiments, Non-Experiments and Propensity Scores," Papers WP126, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
    15. Ghanem, Dalia & Hirshleifer, Sarojini & Kédagni, Désiré & Ortiz-Becerra, Karen, 2024. "Correcting attrition bias using changes-in-changes," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 241(2).
    16. Michael Lechner, 1999. "Nonparametric bounds on employment and income effects of continuous vocational training in East Germany," Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 2(1), pages 1-28.
    17. Esmerelda A. Ramalho & Richard Smith, 2003. "Discrete choice non-response," CeMMAP working papers 07/03, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    18. Martin Huber, 2012. "Identification of Average Treatment Effects in Social Experiments Under Alternative Forms of Attrition," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 37(3), pages 443-474, June.
    19. Victor Chernozhukov & Ivan Fernandez-Val & Siyi Luo, 2018. "Distribution regression with sample selection, with an application to wage decompositions in the UK," CeMMAP working papers CWP68/18, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    20. 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.
    21. Christopher J. Gerry & Georgios Papadopoulos, 2015. "Sample attrition in the RLMS, 2001–10," The Economics of Transition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vol. 23(2), pages 425-468, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    survey non response; sample selectivity; treatment effect model; randomized controlled trial;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C31 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Cross-Sectional Models; Spatial Models; Treatment Effect Models; Quantile Regressions; Social Interaction Models
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • J6 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Mobility, Unemployment, Vacancies, and Immigrant Workers

    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:iza:izadps:dp6751. 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: Holger Hinte (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/izaaade.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.