IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/evarev/v40y2016i3p199-240.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing the Accuracy of Generalized Inferences From Comparison Group Studies Using a Within-Study Comparison Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Andrew P. Jaciw

Abstract

Background: Various studies have examined bias in impact estimates from comparison group studies (CGSs) of job training programs, and in education, where results are benchmarked against experimental results. Such within-study comparison (WSC) approaches investigate levels of bias in CGS-based impact estimates, as well as the success of various design and analytic strategies for reducing bias. Objectives: This article reviews past literature and summarizes conditions under which CGSs replicate experimental benchmark results. It extends the framework to, and develops the methodology for, situations where results from CGSs are generalized to untreated inference populations. Research design: Past research is summarized; methods are developed to examine bias in program impact estimates based on cross-site comparisons in a multisite trial that are evaluated against site-specific experimental benchmarks. Subjects: Students in Grades K–3 in 79 schools in Tennessee; students in Grades 4–8 in 82 schools in Alabama. Measures: Grades K–3 Stanford Achievement Test (SAT) in reading and math scores; Grades 4–8 SAT10 reading scores. Results: Past studies show that bias in CGS-based estimates can be limited through strong design, with local matching, and appropriate analysis involving pretest covariates and variables that represent selection processes. Extension of the methodology to investigate accuracy of generalized estimates from CGSs shows bias from confounders and effect moderators. Conclusion: CGS results, when extrapolated to untreated inference populations, may be biased due to variation in outcomes and impact. Accounting for effects of confounders or moderators may reduce bias.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrew P. Jaciw, 2016. "Assessing the Accuracy of Generalized Inferences From Comparison Group Studies Using a Within-Study Comparison Approach," Evaluation Review, , vol. 40(3), pages 199-240, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:evarev:v:40:y:2016:i:3:p:199-240
    DOI: 10.1177/0193841X16664456
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0193841X16664456
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0193841X16664456?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. 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.
    2. V. Joseph Hotz & Guido W. Imbens & Jacob A. Klerman, 2006. "Evaluating the Differential Effects of Alternative Welfare-to-Work Training Components: A Reanalysis of the California GAIN Program," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 24(3), pages 521-566, July.
    3. 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.
    4. James J. Heckman & Hidehiko Ichimura & Petra E. Todd, 1997. "Matching As An Econometric Evaluation Estimator: Evidence from Evaluating a Job Training Programme," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 64(4), pages 605-654.
    5. repec:mpr:mprres:3694 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Colm O'Muircheartaigh & Larry V. Hedges, 2014. "Generalizing from unrepresentative experiments: a stratified propensity score approach," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 63(2), pages 195-210, February.
    7. Steven Glazerman & Dan M. Levy & David Myers, 2003. "Nonexperimental Versus Experimental Estimates of Earnings Impacts," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 589(1), pages 63-93, September.
    8. 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.
    9. Shadish, William R. & Clark, M. H. & Steiner, Peter M., 2008. "Can Nonrandomized Experiments Yield Accurate Answers? A Randomized Experiment Comparing Random and Nonrandom Assignments," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 103(484), pages 1334-1344.
    10. Elizabeth Ty Wilde & Robinson Hollister, 2007. "How close is close enough? Evaluating propensity score matching using data from a class size reduction experiment," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(3), pages 455-477.
    11. Howard S. Bloom & Carolyn J. Hill & James A. Riccio, 2003. "Linking program implementation and effectiveness: Lessons from a pooled sample of welfare-to-work experiments," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(4), pages 551-575.
    12. Thomas D. Cook & William R. Shadish & Vivian C. Wong, 2008. "Three conditions under which experiments and observational studies produce comparable causal estimates: New findings from within-study comparisons," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(4), pages 724-750.
    13. Roberto Agodini & Mark Dynarski, "undated". "Are Experiments the Only Option? A Look at Dropout Prevention Programs," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 51241adbf9fa4a26add6d54c5, Mathematica Policy Research.
    14. Roberto Agodini & Mark Dynarski, 2004. "Are Experiments the Only Option? A Look at Dropout Prevention Programs," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 86(1), pages 180-194, February.
    15. Charles Michalopoulos & Howard S. Bloom & Carolyn J. Hill, 2004. "Can Propensity-Score Methods Match the Findings from a Random Assignment Evaluation of Mandatory Welfare-to-Work Programs?," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 86(1), pages 156-179, February.
    16. Elizabeth A. Stuart & Stephen R. Cole & Catherine P. Bradshaw & Philip J. Leaf, 2011. "The use of propensity scores to assess the generalizability of results from randomized trials," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 174(2), pages 369-386, April.
    17. 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.
    18. Joseph Hotz, V. & Imbens, Guido W. & Mortimer, Julie H., 2005. "Predicting the efficacy of future training programs using past experiences at other locations," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 125(1-2), pages 241-270.
    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. 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.
    2. Ferraro, Paul J. & Miranda, Juan José, 2014. "The performance of non-experimental designs in the evaluation of environmental programs: A design-replication study using a large-scale randomized experiment as a benchmark," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 107(PA), pages 344-365.
    3. Fortson, Kenneth & Gleason, Philip & Kopa, Emma & Verbitsky-Savitz, Natalya, 2015. "Horseshoes, hand grenades, and treatment effects? Reassessing whether nonexperimental estimators are biased," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 100-113.
    4. Andrew P. Jaciw, 2016. "Applications of a Within-Study Comparison Approach for Evaluating Bias in Generalized Causal Inferences From Comparison Groups Studies," Evaluation Review, , vol. 40(3), pages 241-276, June.
    5. Carlos A. Flores & Oscar A. Mitnik, 2009. "Evaluating Nonexperimental Estimators for Multiple Treatments: Evidence from Experimental Data," Working Papers 2010-10, University of Miami, Department of Economics.
    6. Fatih Unlu & Douglas Lee Lauen & Sarah Crittenden Fuller & Tiffany Berglund & Elc Estrera, 2021. "Can Quasi‐Experimental Evaluations That Rely On State Longitudinal Data Systems Replicate Experimental Results?," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 40(2), pages 572-613, March.
    7. Robin Jacob & Marie-Andree Somers & Pei Zhu & Howard Bloom, 2016. "The Validity of the Comparative Interrupted Time Series Design for Evaluating the Effect of School-Level Interventions," Evaluation Review, , vol. 40(3), pages 167-198, June.
    8. Kenneth Fortson & Natalya Verbitsky-Savitz & Emma Kopa & Philip Gleason, 2012. "Using an Experimental Evaluation of Charter Schools to Test Whether Nonexperimental Comparison Group Methods Can Replicate Experimental Impact Estimates," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 27f871b5b7b94f3a80278a593, Mathematica Policy Research.
    9. 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.
    10. Kenneth Fortson & Philip Gleason & Emma Kopa & Natalya Verbitsky-Savitz, "undated". "Horseshoes, Hand Grenades, and Treatment Effects? Reassessing Bias in Nonexperimental Estimators," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 1c24988cd5454dd3be51fbc2c, Mathematica Policy Research.
    11. Katherine Baicker & Theodore Svoronos, 2019. "Testing the Validity of the Single Interrupted Time Series Design," CID Working Papers 364, Center for International Development at Harvard University.
    12. 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.
    13. Katherine Baicker & Theodore Svoronos, 2019. "Testing the Validity of the Single Interrupted Time Series Design," NBER Working Papers 26080, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Ben Weidmann & Luke Miratrix, 2021. "Lurking Inferential Monsters? Quantifying Selection Bias In Evaluations Of School Programs," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 40(3), pages 964-986, June.
    15. Elizabeth Ty Wilde & Robinson Hollister, 2007. "How close is close enough? Evaluating propensity score matching using data from a class size reduction experiment," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(3), pages 455-477.
    16. Daniel Litwok, 2020. "Using Nonexperimental Methods to Address Noncompliance," Upjohn Working Papers 20-324, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
    17. Sudhanshu Handa & John A. Maluccio, 2010. "Matching the Gold Standard: Comparing Experimental and Nonexperimental Evaluation Techniques for a Geographically Targeted Program," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 58(3), pages 415-447, April.
    18. Gonzalo Nunez-Chaim & Henry G. Overman & Capucine Riom, 2024. "Does subsidising business advice improve firm performance? Evidence from a large RCT," CEP Discussion Papers dp1977, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.

    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:40:y:2016:i:3:p:199-240. 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.