IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2203.12740.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Correcting Attrition Bias using Changes-in-Changes

Author

Listed:
  • Dalia Ghanem
  • Sarojini Hirshleifer
  • D'esir'e K'edagni
  • Karen Ortiz-Becerra

Abstract

Attrition is a common and potentially important threat to internal validity in treatment effect studies. We extend the changes-in-changes approach to identify the average treatment effect for respondents and the entire study population in the presence of attrition. Our method, which exploits baseline outcome data, can be applied to randomized experiments as well as quasi-experimental difference-in-difference designs. A formal comparison highlights that while widely used corrections typically impose restrictions on whether or how response depends on treatment, our proposed attrition correction exploits restrictions on the outcome model. We further show that the conditions required for our correction can accommodate a broad class of response models that depend on treatment in an arbitrary way. We illustrate the implementation of the proposed corrections in an application to a large-scale randomized experiment.

Suggested Citation

  • Dalia Ghanem & Sarojini Hirshleifer & D'esir'e K'edagni & Karen Ortiz-Becerra, 2022. "Correcting Attrition Bias using Changes-in-Changes," Papers 2203.12740, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2024.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2203.12740
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2203.12740
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Charles F. Manski, 1989. "Anatomy of the Selection Problem," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 24(3), pages 343-360.
    2. James J. Heckman, 1976. "The Common Structure of Statistical Models of Truncation, Sample Selection and Limited Dependent Variables and a Simple Estimator for Such Models," NBER Chapters, in: Annals of Economic and Social Measurement, Volume 5, number 4, pages 475-492, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Martin Huber, 2012. "Identification of Average Treatment Effects in Social Experiments Under Alternative Forms of Attrition," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 37(3), pages 443-474, June.
    4. John DiNardo & Jordan Matsudaira & Justin McCrary & Lisa Sanbonmatsu, 2021. "A Practical Proactive Proposal for Dealing with Attrition: Alternative Approaches and an Empirical Example," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 39(S2), pages 507-541.
    5. Orazio P. Attanasio & Costas Meghir & Ana Santiago, 2012. "Education Choices in Mexico: Using a Structural Model and a Randomized Experiment to Evaluate PROGRESA," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 79(1), pages 37-66.
    6. John Fitzgerald & Peter Gottschalk & Robert Moffitt, 1998. "An Analysis of Sample Attrition in Panel Data: The Michigan Panel Study of Income Dynamics," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 33(2), pages 251-299.
    7. Heckman, James, 2013. "Sample selection bias as a specification error," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 31(3), pages 129-137.
    8. Gerard J. van den Berg & Maarten Lindeboom, 1998. "Attrition in Panel Survey Data and the Estimation of Multi-State Labor Market Models," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 33(2), pages 458-478.
    9. Luc Behaghel & Bruno Crépon & Marc Gurgand & Thomas Le Barbanchon, 2015. "Please Call Again: Correcting Nonresponse Bias in Treatment Effect Models," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 97(5), pages 1070-1080, December.
    10. Gustavo J. Bobonis, 2011. "The Impact of Conditional Cash Transfers on Marriage and Divorce," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(2), pages 281-312.
    11. Susan Athey & Guido W. Imbens, 2006. "Identification and Inference in Nonlinear Difference-in-Differences Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 74(2), pages 431-497, March.
    12. Horowitz, Joel L & Manski, Charles F, 1995. "Identification and Robustness with Contaminated and Corrupted Data," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 63(2), pages 281-302, March.
    13. Susan W. Parker & Petra E. Todd, 2017. "Conditional Cash Transfers: The Case of Progresa/Oportunidades," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 55(3), pages 866-915, September.
    14. Paul Schultz, T., 2004. "School subsidies for the poor: evaluating the Mexican Progresa poverty program," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 199-250, June.
    15. Yuya Sasaki & Yulong Wang, 2024. "Extreme Changes in Changes," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(2), pages 812-824, April.
    16. James P. Ziliak & Thomas J. Kniesner, 1998. "The Importance of Sample Attrition in Life Cycle Labor Supply Estimation," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 33(2), pages 507-530.
    17. Paul J. Gertler & Sebastian W. Martinez & Marta Rubio-Codina, 2012. "Investing Cash Transfers to Raise Long-Term Living Standards," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 4(1), pages 164-192, January.
    18. David S. Lee, 2009. "Training, Wages, and Sample Selection: Estimating Sharp Bounds on Treatment Effects," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 76(3), pages 1071-1102.
    19. repec:hal:pseose:halshs-01245539 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Gayani Rathnayake & Akanksha Negi & Otavio Bartalotti & Xueyan Zhao, 2024. "Difference-in-Differences with Sample Selection," Papers 2411.09221, arXiv.org.

    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. Hans Fricke & Markus Frölich & Martin Huber & Michael Lechner, 2020. "Endogeneity and non‐response bias in treatment evaluation – nonparametric identification of causal effects by instruments," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 35(5), pages 481-504, August.
    2. Markus Frölich & Martin Huber, 2014. "Treatment Evaluation With Multiple Outcome Periods Under Endogeneity and Attrition," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 109(508), pages 1697-1711, December.
    3. Martin Huber, 2014. "Treatment Evaluation in the Presence of Sample Selection," Econometric Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(8), pages 869-905, November.
    4. Teresa Molina Millán & Karen Macours, 2017. "Attrition in randomized control trials: Using tracking information to correct bias," FEUNL Working Paper Series novaf:wp1702, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Faculdade de Economia.
    5. Chen, Yuanyuan & Feng, Shuaizhang & Han, Yujie, 2020. "The effect of primary school type on the high school opportunities of migrant children in China," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 325-338.
    6. Martin Huber & Giovanni Mellace, 2015. "Sharp Bounds on Causal Effects under Sample Selection," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 77(1), pages 129-151, February.
    7. Christelis, Dimitris & Messina, Julián, 2019. "Partial Identification of Population Average and Quantile Treatment Effects in Observational Data under Sample Selection," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 9520, Inter-American Development Bank.
    8. Michela Bia & Martin Huber & Lukáš Lafférs, 2024. "Double Machine Learning for Sample Selection Models," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(3), pages 958-969, July.
    9. Marcel Das & Vera Toepoel & Arthur van Soest, 2011. "Nonparametric Tests of Panel Conditioning and Attrition Bias in Panel Surveys," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 40(1), pages 32-56, February.
    10. Shin, Jaeun & Moon, Sangho, 2006. "Fertility, relative wages, and labor market decisions: A case of female teachers," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 591-604, December.
    11. Martin Huber & Giovanni Mellace, 2014. "Testing exclusion restrictions and additive separability in sample selection models," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 75-92, August.
    12. Martin Huber & Anna Solovyeva, 2020. "Direct and Indirect Effects under Sample Selection and Outcome Attrition," Econometrics, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-25, December.
    13. Bo E. Honoré & Luojia Hu, 2020. "Selection Without Exclusion," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 88(3), pages 1007-1029, May.
    14. Lorenzo Cappellari & Stephen P. Jenkins, 2004. "Modelling Low Pay Transition Probabilities, Accounting for Panel Attrition, Non-Response, and Initial Conditions," CESifo Working Paper Series 1232, CESifo.
    15. Fitzgerald John M, 2011. "Attrition in Models of Intergenerational Links Using the PSID with Extensions to Health and to Sibling Models," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 11(3), pages 1-63, September.
    16. James J. Heckman, 2005. "Micro Data, Heterogeneity and the Evaluation of Public Policy Part 2," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 49(1), pages 16-44, March.
    17. Juliana Mesén Vargas, 2018. "Income Effect on Labor Outcomes for People Living in Poverty: the case of PROGRESA," LIDAM Discussion Papers IRES 2018015, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
    18. repec:hal:pseose:halshs-01245539 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Esmerelda A. Ramalho & Richard Smith, 2003. "Discrete choice non-response," CeMMAP working papers 07/03, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    20. Martin Huber, 2012. "Identification of Average Treatment Effects in Social Experiments Under Alternative Forms of Attrition," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 37(3), pages 443-474, June.
    21. Guilhem Bascle, 2008. "Controlling for endogeneity with instrumental variables in strategic management research," Post-Print hal-00576795, HAL.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C21 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Cross-Sectional Models; Spatial Models; Treatment Effect Models
    • C23 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Models with Panel Data; Spatio-temporal Models
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:arx:papers:2203.12740. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.