IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jnlasa/v110y2015i512p1412-1421.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Rerandomization to Balance Tiers of Covariates

Author

Listed:
  • Kari Lock Morgan
  • Donald B. Rubin

Abstract

When conducting a randomized experiment, if an allocation yields treatment groups that differ meaningfully with respect to relevant covariates, groups should be rerandomized. The process involves specifying an explicit criterion for whether an allocation is acceptable, based on a measure of covariate balance, and rerandomizing units until an acceptable allocation is obtained. Here, we illustrate how rerandomization could have improved the design of an already conducted randomized experiment on vocabulary and mathematics training programs, then provide a rerandomization procedure for covariates that vary in importance, and finally offer other extensions for rerandomization, including methods addressing computational efficiency. When covariates vary in a priori importance, better balance should be required for more important covariates. Rerandomization based on Mahalanobis distance preserves the joint distribution of covariates, but balances all covariates equally. Here, we propose rerandomizing based on Mahalanobis distance within tiers of covariate importance. Because balancing covariates in one tier will in general also partially balance covariates in other tiers, for each subsequent tier we explicitly balance only the components orthogonal to covariates in more important tiers.

Suggested Citation

  • Kari Lock Morgan & Donald B. Rubin, 2015. "Rerandomization to Balance Tiers of Covariates," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 110(512), pages 1412-1421, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:jnlasa:v:110:y:2015:i:512:p:1412-1421
    DOI: 10.1080/01621459.2015.1079528
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/01621459.2015.1079528
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/01621459.2015.1079528?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Rubin, Donald B., 2008. "Comment: The Design and Analysis of Gold Standard Randomized Experiments," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 103(484), pages 1350-1353.
    3. D. R. Cox, 2009. "Randomization in the Design of Experiments," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 77(3), pages 415-429, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Pedro Carneiro & Sokbae Lee & Daniel Wilhelm, 2020. "Optimal data collection for randomized control trials," The Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 23(1), pages 1-31.
    2. Hengtao Zhang & Guosheng Yin, 2021. "Response‐adaptive rerandomization," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 70(5), pages 1281-1298, November.
    3. Adam Kapelner & Abba Krieger, 2023. "A matching procedure for sequential experiments that iteratively learns which covariates improve power," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 79(1), pages 216-229, March.
    4. James J. Heckman & Ganesh Karapakula, 2019. "The Perry Preschoolers at Late Midlife: A Study in Design-Specific Inference," Working Papers 2019-034, Human Capital and Economic Opportunity Working Group.
    5. Sylvain Chassang & Rong Feng, 2020. "The Cost of Imbalance in Clinical Trials," Working Papers 2020-12, Princeton University. Economics Department..
    6. James J Heckman & Ganesh Karapakula, 2021. "Using a satisficing model of experimenter decision-making to guide finite-sample inference for compromised experiments," The Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 24(2), pages 1-39.
    7. Quan Zhou & Philip A Ernst & Kari Lock Morgan & Donald B Rubin & Anru Zhang, 2018. "Sequential rerandomization," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 105(3), pages 745-752.
    8. Yuehao Bai, 2022. "Optimality of Matched-Pair Designs in Randomized Controlled Trials," Papers 2206.07845, arXiv.org.
    9. James J Heckman & Ganesh Karapakula, 2021. "Using a satisficing model of experimenter decision-making to guide finite-sample inference for compromised experiments," The Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 24(2), pages 1-39.
    10. Ke Zhu & Hanzhong Liu, 2023. "Pair‐switching rerandomization," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 79(3), pages 2127-2142, September.
    11. Nicole E. Pashley & Luke W. Miratrix, 2022. "Block What You Can, Except When You Shouldn’t," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 47(1), pages 69-100, February.
    12. Baosheng Liang & Peng Wu & Xingwei Tong & Yanping Qiu, 2020. "Regression and subgroup detection for heterogeneous samples," Computational Statistics, Springer, vol. 35(4), pages 1853-1878, December.
    13. Yves Tillé, 2022. "Some Solutions Inspired by Survey Sampling Theory to Build Effective Clinical Trials," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 90(3), pages 481-498, December.
    14. Yang, Haoyu & Qin, Yichen & Wang, Fan & Li, Yang & Hu, Feifang, 2023. "Balancing covariates in multi-arm trials via adaptive randomization," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    15. Zhao, Anqi & Ding, Peng, 2024. "No star is good news: A unified look at rerandomization based on p-values from covariate balance tests," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 241(1).

    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. Zhenzhen Xu & John D. Kalbfleisch, 2013. "Repeated Randomization and Matching in Multi-Arm Trials," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 69(4), pages 949-959, December.
    2. Yasemin Kisbu-Sakarya & Thomas D. Cook & Yang Tang & M. H. Clark, 2018. "Comparative Regression Discontinuity: A Stress Test With Small Samples," Evaluation Review, , vol. 42(1), pages 111-143, February.
    3. Goldberg, Matthew H., 2019. "How often does random assignment fail? Estimates and recommendations," OSF Preprints s2j4r, Center for Open Science.
    4. Deborah Peikes & Grace Anglin & Erin Fries Taylor & Stacy Dale & Ann O'Malley & Arkadipta Ghosh & Kaylyn Swankoski & Lara Converse & Rosalind Keith & Mariel Finucane & Jesse Crosson & Anne Mutti & Tho, "undated". "Evaluation of the Comprehensive Primary Care Initiative: Third Annual Report," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 70714de1cb3d4620a5957f68d, Mathematica Policy Research.
    5. Colin Cannonier, 2009. "State Abstinence Education Programs and Teen Fertility in the U.S," Departmental Working Papers 2009-14, Department of Economics, Louisiana State University.
    6. Nicholas Voorhees & Justin C. Ortagus & Erica Marti, 2023. "Give It a Swirl? An Examination of the Influence of 4-Year Students Taking Entry-Level Math Courses at the Local Community College," Research in Higher Education, Springer;Association for Institutional Research, vol. 64(1), pages 147-173, February.
    7. 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.
    8. Rezaei, Ehsan Eyshi & Gaiser, Thomas, 2017. "Change in crop management strategies could double the maize yield in Africa," Discussion Papers 260154, University of Bonn, Center for Development Research (ZEF).
    9. Jean Stockard, 2013. "Merging the accountability and scientific research requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act: using cohort control groups," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 47(4), pages 2225-2257, June.
    10. 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.
    11. Anna Haskins, 2013. "Mass Imprisonment and the Intergenerational Transmission of Disadvantage: Paternal Incarceration and Children’s Cognitive Skill Development," Working Papers wp13-15-ff, Princeton University, School of Public and International Affairs, Center for Research on Child Wellbeing..
    12. 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.
    13. Joscha Legewie, 2018. "Living on the Edge: Neighborhood Boundaries and the Spatial Dynamics of Violent Crime," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 55(5), pages 1957-1977, October.
    14. 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.
    15. Michael Broda & Eric Ekholm & Barbara Schneider & Amy C. Hutton, 2018. "Teachers’ Social Networks, College-Going Practices, and the Diffusion of a School-Based Reform Initiative," SAGE Open, , vol. 8(4), pages 21582440188, December.
    16. Wunsch, Conny & Strobl, Renate, 2018. "Identification of Causal Mechanisms Based on Between-Subject Double Randomization Designs," IZA Discussion Papers 11626, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    17. Elena Pesce & Fabio Rapallo & Eva Riccomagno & Henry P. Wynn, 2023. "Generation of all randomizations using circuits," Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, Springer;The Institute of Statistical Mathematics, vol. 75(4), pages 683-704, August.
    18. Vivian C. Wong & Peter M. Steiner, 2018. "Designs of Empirical Evaluations of Nonexperimental Methods in Field Settings," Evaluation Review, , vol. 42(2), pages 176-213, April.
    19. Dennis A. Kramer & Justin C. Ortagus & T. Austin Lacy, 2018. "Tuition-Setting Authority and Broad-Based Merit Aid: The Effect of Policy Intersection on Pricing Strategies," Research in Higher Education, Springer;Association for Institutional Research, vol. 59(4), pages 489-518, June.
    20. Brian Goesling & Joanne Lee, 2015. "Improving the Rigor of Quasi-Experimental Impact Evaluations: Lessons for Teen Pregnancy Prevention Researchers," Mathematica Policy Research Reports f4f8b24cbf874a3989d87cf89, Mathematica Policy Research.

    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:taf:jnlasa:v:110:y:2015:i:512:p:1412-1421. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/UASA20 .

    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.