IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iza/izadps/dp17217.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Striking the Right Balance: Why Standard Balance Tests Over-Reject the Null, and How to Fix It

Author

Listed:
  • Kerwin, Jason

    (University of Washington)

  • Rostom, Nada

    (University of Antwerp)

  • Sterck, Olivier

    (University of Oxford)

Abstract

Economists often use balance tests to demonstrate that the treatment and control groups are comparable prior to an intervention. We show that typical implementations of balance tests have poor statistical properties. Pairwise t-tests leave it unclear how many rejections indicate overall imbalance. Omnibus tests of joint orthogonality, in which the treatment is regressed on all the baseline covariates, address this ambiguity but substantially over-reject the null hypothesis using the sampling-based p-values that are typical in the literature. This problem is exacerbated when the number of covariates is high compared to the number of observations. We examine the performance of alternative tests, and show that omnibus F-tests of joint orthogonality with randomization inference p-values have the correct size and reasonable power. We apply these tests to data from two prominent recent articles, where standard F-tests indicate imbalance, and show that the study arms are actually balanced when appropriate tests are used.

Suggested Citation

  • Kerwin, Jason & Rostom, Nada & Sterck, Olivier, 2024. "Striking the Right Balance: Why Standard Balance Tests Over-Reject the Null, and How to Fix It," IZA Discussion Papers 17217, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
  • Handle: RePEc:iza:izadps:dp17217
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://docs.iza.org/dp17217.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    balance tests; power; size; randomization inference;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C1 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General
    • C9 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments
    • O12 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Microeconomic Analyses of Economic Development

    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:iza:izadps:dp17217. 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: Holger Hinte (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/izaaade.html .

    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.