IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/evarev/v45y2021i6p279-308.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Empirical Validation of the Regression Point Displacement Design Using Within-Study Comparison Logic: Emerging Possibilities and Cautions

Author

Listed:
  • Joshua Hendrickse
  • William H. Yeaton

Abstract

Background The regression point displacement (RPD) design is a quasi-experiment (QE) that aims to control many threats to internal validity. Though it has existed for several decades, RPD has only recently begun to answer applied research questions in lieu of stronger QEs. Objectives Our primary objective was to implement within-study comparison (WSC) logic to create RPD replicates and to determine conditions under which RPD might provide estimates comparable to those found in validating experiments. Research Design We utilize three randomized controlled trials (two cluster-level, one individual-level), artificially decomposing or creating cluster structures, to create multiple RPDs. We compare results in each RPD treatment group to a fixed set of control groups to gauge the congruence of these repeated RPD realizations with results found in these three RCTs. Results RPD’s performance was uneven. Using multiple criteria, we found that RPDs successfully predicted the direction of the RCT’s intervention effect but inconsistently fell within the .10 SD threshold. A scant 13% of RPD results were statistically significant at either the .05 or .01 alpha-level. RPD results were within the 95% confidence interval of RCTs around half the time, and false negative rates were substantially higher than false positive rates. Conclusions RPD consistently underestimates treatment effects in validating RCTs. We analyze reasons for this insensitivity and offer practical suggestions to improve the chances RPD will correctly identify favorable results. We note that the synthetic, “decomposition of cluster RCTs,†WSC design represents a prototype for evaluating other QEs.

Suggested Citation

  • Joshua Hendrickse & William H. Yeaton, 2021. "An Empirical Validation of the Regression Point Displacement Design Using Within-Study Comparison Logic: Emerging Possibilities and Cautions," Evaluation Review, , vol. 45(6), pages 279-308, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:evarev:v:45:y:2021:i:6:p:279-308
    DOI: 10.1177/0193841X211064420
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0193841X211064420
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0193841X211064420?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. Gbenga Ogedegbe & Jacob Plange-Rhule & Joyce Gyamfi & William Chaplin & Michael Ntim & Kingsley Apusiga & Juliet Iwelunmor & Kwasi Yeboah Awudzi & Kofi Nana Quakyi & Jazmin Mogaverro & Kiran Khurshid , 2018. "Health insurance coverage with or without a nurse-led task shifting strategy for hypertension control: A pragmatic cluster randomized trial in Ghana," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-17, May.
    3. Thomas D. Cook & Naixin Zhu & Alice Klein & Prentice Starkey & Jaime Thomas, "undated". "How Much Bias Results if a Quasi-Experimental Design Combines Local Comparison Groups, a Pretest Outcome Measure and Other Covariates?: A Within Study Comparison of Preschool Effects," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 2a4a993d6416492c9cc877fe2, Mathematica Policy Research.
    4. Valentin Amrhein & Sander Greenland & Blake McShane, 2019. "Scientists rise up against statistical significance," Nature, Nature, vol. 567(7748), pages 305-307, March.
    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. Denis Fougère & Nicolas Jacquemet, 2020. "Policy Evaluation Using Causal Inference Methods," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-03455978, HAL.
    2. James J. Heckman, 1991. "Randomization and Social Policy Evaluation Revisited," NBER Technical Working Papers 0107, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Sant’Anna, Pedro H.C. & Zhao, Jun, 2020. "Doubly robust difference-in-differences estimators," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 219(1), pages 101-122.
    4. Mia Papasideris & Scott T Leatherdale & Kate Battista & Peter A Hall, 2021. "An examination of the prospective association between physical activity and academic achievement in youth at the population level," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(6), pages 1-15, June.
    5. Michael Gerfin & Michael Lechner, 2002. "A Microeconometric Evaluation of the Active Labour Market Policy in Switzerland," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 112(482), pages 854-893, October.
    6. Sergio Afcha & Jose García-Quevedo, 2016. "The impact of R&D subsidies on R&D employment composition," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 25(6), pages 955-975.
    7. Surhan Cam & Serap Palaz, 2023. "Mutual interests management with a purposive approach: Evidence from the Turkish shipyards for an amorphous impact model between (subjective) well‐being and performance," Industrial Relations Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(1), pages 40-70, January.
    8. Monica Beuran & Gaël Raballand & Julio Revilla, 2011. "Improving Aid Effectiveness in Aid-Dependent Countries: Lessons from Zambia," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 11040, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    9. Iacus, Stefano M. & Porro, Giuseppe, 2007. "Missing data imputation, matching and other applications of random recursive partitioning," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 773-789, October.
    10. Sascha O. Becker & Marco Caliendo, 2007. "Sensitivity analysis for average treatment effects," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 7(1), pages 71-83, February.
    11. Augurzky, Boris & Kluve, Jochen, 2004. "Assessing the performance of matching algorithms when selection into treatment is strong," RWI Discussion Papers 21, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung.
    12. Tymon Słoczyński, 2015. "The Oaxaca–Blinder Unexplained Component as a Treatment Effects Estimator," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 77(4), pages 588-604, August.
    13. Hämäläinen, Kari & Ollikainen, Virve, 2004. "Differential Effects of Active Labour Market Programmes in the Early Stages of Young People's Unemployment," Research Reports 115, VATT Institute for Economic Research.
    14. Siddharth Sareen & Andrea Saltelli & Kjetil Rommetveit, 2020. "Ethics of quantification: illumination, obfuscation and performative legitimation," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 6(1), pages 1-5, December.
    15. David Card & Philip K. Robins & Winston Lin, 1998. "Would Financial Incentives for Leaving Welfare Lead Some People to Stay on Welfare Longer? An Experimental Evaluation of 'Entry Effects' in the SSP," NBER Working Papers 6449, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Eric Rasmusen, 1995. "Observed Choice, Estimation, and Optimism About Policy Changes," Econometrics 9506004, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 16 Jun 1995.
    17. Jayanta Bhattacharya & Frank Neuhauser & Robert T. Reville & Seth A. Seabury, 2010. "Evaluating Permanent Disability Ratings Using Empirical Data on Earnings Losses," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 77(1), pages 231-260, March.
    18. Josh Angrist & David Autor & Sally Hudson & Amanda Pallais, 2015. "Evaluating Econometric Evaluations of Post-Secondary Aid," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(5), pages 502-507, May.
    19. Robert W. Fairlie & Dean Karlan & Jonathan Zinman, 2015. "Behind the GATE Experiment: Evidence on Effects of and Rationales for Subsidized Entrepreneurship Training," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 7(2), pages 125-161, May.
    20. Richard K. Crump & V. Joseph Hotz & Guido W. Imbens & Oscar A. Mitnik, 2006. "Moving the Goalposts: Addressing Limited Overlap in the Estimation of Average Treatment Effects by Changing the Estimand," NBER Technical Working Papers 0330, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    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:45:y:2021:i:6:p:279-308. 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.