IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/evarev/v42y2018i4p391-422.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Optimal Allocation of Interviews to Baseline and Endline Surveys in Place-Based Randomized Trials and Quasi-Experiments

Author

Listed:
  • Donald P. Green
  • Winston Lin
  • Claudia Gerber

Abstract

Background: Many place-based randomized trials and quasi-experiments use a pair of cross-section surveys, rather than panel surveys, to estimate the average treatment effect of an intervention. In these studies, a random sample of individuals in each geographic cluster is selected for a baseline (preintervention) survey, and an independent random sample is selected for an endline (postintervention) survey. Objective: This design raises the question, given a fixed budget, how should a researcher allocate resources between the baseline and endline surveys to maximize the precision of the estimated average treatment effect? Results: We formalize this allocation problem and show that although the optimal share of interviews allocated to the baseline survey is always less than one-half, it is an increasing function of the total number of interviews per cluster, the cluster-level correlation between the baseline measure and the endline outcome, and the intracluster correlation coefficient. An example using multicountry survey data from Africa illustrates how the optimal allocation formulas can be combined with data to inform decisions at the planning stage. Another example uses data from a digital political advertising experiment in Texas to explore how precision would have varied with alternative allocations.

Suggested Citation

  • Donald P. Green & Winston Lin & Claudia Gerber, 2018. "Optimal Allocation of Interviews to Baseline and Endline Surveys in Place-Based Randomized Trials and Quasi-Experiments," Evaluation Review, , vol. 42(4), pages 391-422, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:evarev:v:42:y:2018:i:4:p:391-422
    DOI: 10.1177/0193841X18799128
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0193841X18799128
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0193841X18799128?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yang L. & Tsiatis A. A., 2001. "Efficiency Study of Estimators for a Treatment Effect in a Pretest-Posttest Trial," The American Statistician, American Statistical Association, vol. 55, pages 314-321, November.
    2. Gerber, Alan S. & Gimpel, James G. & Green, Donald P. & Shaw, Daron R., 2011. "How Large and Long-lasting Are the Persuasive Effects of Televised Campaign Ads? Results from a Randomized Field Experiment," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 105(1), pages 135-150, February.
    3. Joshua D. Angrist & Jörn-Steffen Pischke, 2009. "Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 8769.
    4. Heinz Welsch, 2007. "Macroeconomics and life satisfaction: Revisiting the "misery index"," Journal of Applied Economics, Universidad del CEMA, vol. 10, pages 237-251, November.
    5. Luke W. Miratrix & Jasjeet S. Sekhon & Bin Yu, 2013. "Adjusting treatment effect estimates by post-stratification in randomized experiments," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 75(2), pages 369-396, March.
    6. McKenzie, David, 2012. "Beyond baseline and follow-up: The case for more T in experiments," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(2), pages 210-221.
    7. Richard Williams, 2012. "Using the margins command to estimate and interpret adjusted predictions and marginal effects," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 12(2), pages 308-331, June.
    8. Martin S. Ridout & Clarice G. B. Demétrio & David Firth, 1999. "Estimating Intraclass Correlation for Binary Data," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 55(1), pages 137-148, March.
    9. D. Firth & K. E. Bennett, 1998. "Robust models in probability sampling," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 60(1), pages 3-21.
    10. David Dorn & Justina Fischer & Gebhard Kirchgässner & Alfonso Sousa-Poza, 2007. "Is It Culture or Democracy? The Impact of Democracy and Culture on Happiness," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 82(3), pages 505-526, July.
    11. Imbens,Guido W. & Rubin,Donald B., 2015. "Causal Inference for Statistics, Social, and Biomedical Sciences," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521885881.
    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. Peter Z. Schochet, "undated". "Statistical Theory for the RCT-YES Software: Design-Based Causal Inference for RCTs," Mathematica Policy Research Reports a0c005c003c242308a92c02dc, Mathematica Policy Research.
    2. Marie Bjørneby & Annette Alstadsæter & Kjetil Telle, 2018. "Collusive tax evasion by employers and employees. Evidence from a randomized fi eld experiment in Norway," Discussion Papers 891, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    3. Markku Maula & Wouter Stam, 2020. "Enhancing Rigor in Quantitative Entrepreneurship Research," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 44(6), pages 1059-1090, November.
    4. Peter Z. Schochet, 2020. "Analyzing Grouped Administrative Data for RCTs Using Design-Based Methods," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 45(1), pages 32-57, February.
    5. Jeffrey D. Michler & Anna Josephson, 2022. "Recent developments in inference: practicalities for applied economics," Chapters, in: A Modern Guide to Food Economics, chapter 11, pages 235-268, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. Art B. Owen & Hal Varian, 2018. "Optimizing the tie-breaker regression discontinuity design," Papers 1808.07563, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2020.
    7. Colnet Bénédicte & Josse Julie & Varoquaux Gaël & Scornet Erwan, 2022. "Causal effect on a target population: A sensitivity analysis to handle missing covariates," Journal of Causal Inference, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 372-414, January.
    8. Alloush, Mo & Bloem, Jeffrey R., 2022. "Neighborhood violence, poverty, and psychological well-being," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    9. Sloczynski, Tymon, 2018. "A General Weighted Average Representation of the Ordinary and Two-Stage Least Squares Estimands," IZA Discussion Papers 11866, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    10. Pedro Carneiro & Sokbae Lee & Daniel Wilhelm, 2020. "Optimal data collection for randomized control trials [Microcredit impacts: Evidence from a randomized microcredit program placement experiment by Compartamos Banco]," The Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 23(1), pages 1-31.
    11. Hennessy Jonathan & Dasgupta Tirthankar & Miratrix Luke & Pattanayak Cassandra & Sarkar Pradipta, 2016. "A Conditional Randomization Test to Account for Covariate Imbalance in Randomized Experiments," Journal of Causal Inference, De Gruyter, vol. 4(1), pages 61-80, March.
    12. Bjørneby, Marie & Alstadsæter, Annette & Telle, Kjetil, 2021. "Limits to third-party reporting: Evidence from a randomized field experiment in Norway," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    13. Karel Janda & Oleg Kravtsov, 2022. "Regulatory Stress Tests and Bank Responses: Heterogeneous Treatment Effect in Dynamic Settings," International Journal of Central Banking, International Journal of Central Banking, vol. 18(2), pages 1-49, June.
    14. Mark Kattenberg & Bas Scheer & Jurre Thiel, 2023. "Causal forests with fixed effects for treatment effect heterogeneity in difference-in-differences," CPB Discussion Paper 452, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    15. Victor Chernozhukov & Carlos Cinelli & Whitney Newey & Amit Sharma & Vasilis Syrgkanis, 2021. "Long Story Short: Omitted Variable Bias in Causal Machine Learning," Papers 2112.13398, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2023.
    16. Capuno, Joseph & Kraft, Aleli & O'Donnell, Owen, 2021. "Effectiveness of clinic-based cardiovascular disease prevention: A randomized encouragement design experiment in the Philippines," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 283(C).
    17. Jeffrey Smith & Arthur Sweetman, 2016. "Viewpoint: Estimating the causal effects of policies and programs," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 49(3), pages 871-905, August.
    18. Peter Z. Schochet, 2018. "Design-Based Estimators for Average Treatment Effects for Multi-Armed RCTs," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 43(5), pages 568-593, October.
    19. 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.
    20. Aucejo, Esteban M. & French, Jacob & Ugalde Araya, Maria Paola & Zafar, Basit, 2020. "The impact of COVID-19 on student experiences and expectations: Evidence from a survey," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).

    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:sae:evarev:v:42:y:2018:i:4:p:391-422. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.