IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/evarev/v15y1991i5p571-604.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Random Measurement Error Does Not Bias the Treatment Effect Estimate in the Regression-Discontinuity Design

Author

Listed:
  • William M.K. Trochim

    (Cornell University)

  • Joseph C. Cappelleri

    (Cornell University)

  • Charles S. Reichardt

    (University of Denver)

Abstract

This article examines the regression-discontinuity (RD) design when there is random measure ment error and a treatment interaction effect. Two simulation issues -the specification of the pretest-posttest functional form and the choice of the point-of-estimation of the treatment effect- are examined Traditionally, an interaction effect in the general linear model has been con structed after centering the true scores by subtracting their mean. However, because the RD design has traditionally estimated the treatment effect at the cutoff, one is liable to obtain an apparently biased treatment effect that is actually attributable to the misspecification with regard to the point-of-estimation. Formulas are provided that allow one to control exactly in simulations the magnitude of a treatment effect at any point-of-estimation. These formulas can also be used for simulating the randomized experimental (RE) case where estimation is not at the pretest mean.

Suggested Citation

  • William M.K. Trochim & Joseph C. Cappelleri & Charles S. Reichardt, 1991. "Random Measurement Error Does Not Bias the Treatment Effect Estimate in the Regression-Discontinuity Design," Evaluation Review, , vol. 15(5), pages 571-604, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:evarev:v:15:y:1991:i:5:p:571-604
    DOI: 10.1177/0193841X9101500504
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0193841X9101500504
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0193841X9101500504?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. W. G. Cochran, 1969. "The Use of Covariance in Observational Studies," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 18(3), pages 270-275, November.
    2. Joseph C. Cappelleri & William M.K. Trochim & T.D. Stanley & Charles S. Reichardt, 1991. "Random Measurement Error Does Not Bias the Treatment Effect Estimate in the Regression-Discontinuity Design," Evaluation Review, , vol. 15(4), pages 395-419, August.
    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. Jin-young Choi & Myoung-jae Lee, 2017. "Regression discontinuity: review with extensions," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 58(4), pages 1217-1246, December.
    2. Joseph C. Cappelleri & Richard B. Darlington & William M.K. Trochim, 1994. "Power Analysis of Cutoff-Based Randomized Clinical Trials," Evaluation Review, , vol. 18(2), pages 141-152, April.
    3. Lee Myoung-Jae, 2017. "Regression Discontinuity with Errors in the Running Variable: Effect on Truthful Margin," Journal of Econometric Methods, De Gruyter, vol. 6(1), pages 1-8, January.
    4. T.D. Stanley, 1991. ""Regression-Discontinuity Design" By Any Other Name Might Be Less Problematic," Evaluation Review, , vol. 15(5), pages 605-624, October.
    5. Alberto Abadie & Susan Athey & Guido W. Imbens & Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2014. "Finite Population Causal Standard Errors," NBER Working Papers 20325, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Charles S. Reichardt & William M.K. Trochim & Joseph C. Cappelleri, 1995. "Reports of the Death of Regression-Discontinuity Analysis are Greatly Exaggerated," Evaluation Review, , vol. 19(1), pages 39-63, February.

    More about this item

    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:sae:evarev:v:15:y:1991:i:5:p:571-604. 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.