IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cpr/ceprdp/18794.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How Much Should We Trust Observational Estimates? Accumulating Evidence Using RCTs with Imperfect Compliance

Author

Listed:
  • Bernard, David Rhys
  • Bryan, Gharad
  • Chabe-Ferret, Sylvain
  • de Quidt, Jonathan
  • Fliegner, Jasmin Claire
  • Rathelot, Roland

Abstract

The use of observational methods remains common in program evaluation. How much should we trust these studies, which lack clear identifying variation? We propose adjusting confidence intervals to incorporate the uncertainty due to observational bias. Using data from 44 development RCTs with imperfect compliance (ICRCTs), we estimate the parameters required to construct our confidence intervals. The results show that, after accounting for potential bias, observational studies have low effective power. Using our adjusted confidence intervals, a hypothetical infinite sample size observational study has a minimum detectable effect size of over 0.3 standard deviations. We conclude that – given current evidence – observational studies are uninformative about many programs that in truth have important effects. There is a silver lining: collecting data from more ICRCTs may help to reduce uncertainty about bias, and increase the effective power of observational program evaluation in the future.

Suggested Citation

  • Bernard, David Rhys & Bryan, Gharad & Chabe-Ferret, Sylvain & de Quidt, Jonathan & Fliegner, Jasmin Claire & Rathelot, Roland, 2024. "How Much Should We Trust Observational Estimates? Accumulating Evidence Using RCTs with Imperfect Compliance," CEPR Discussion Papers 18794, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    • Handle: RePEc:cpr:ceprdp:18794
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cepr.org/publications/DP18794
    Download Restriction: CEPR Discussion Papers are free to download for our researchers, subscribers and members. If you fall into one of these categories but have trouble downloading our papers, please contact us at subscribers@cepr.org
    ---><---

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

    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:cpr:ceprdp:18794. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cepr.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.