IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/99921.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Smile: A Simple Diagnostic for Selection on Observables

Author

Listed:
  • Slichter, David

Abstract

This paper develops a simple diagnostic for the selection on observables assumption in the case of a binary treatment variable. I show that, under common assumptions, when selection on observables does not hold, designs based on selection on observables will estimate treatment effects approaching infinity or negative infinity among observations with propensity scores close to 0 or 1. Researchers can check for violations of selection on observables either informally by looking for a "smile" shape in a binned scatterplot, or with a simple formal test. When selection on observables fails, the researcher can detect the sign of the resulting bias.

Suggested Citation

  • Slichter, David, 2020. "Smile: A Simple Diagnostic for Selection on Observables," MPRA Paper 99921, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:99921
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/99921/2/MPRA_paper_99921.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hansen, Lars Peter, 1982. "Large Sample Properties of Generalized Method of Moments Estimators," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(4), pages 1029-1054, July.
    2. Carolina Caetano, 2015. "A Test of Exogeneity Without Instrumental Variables in Models With Bunching," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83(4), pages 1581-1600, July.
    3. Richard Blundell & Joel L. Horowitz, 2007. "A Non-Parametric Test of Exogeneity," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 74(4), pages 1035-1058.
    4. 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.
    5. Stephen G. Donald & Yu-Chin Hsu & Robert P. Lieli, 2014. "Testing the Unconfoundedness Assumption via Inverse Probability Weighted Estimators of (L)ATT," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(3), pages 395-415, July.
    6. Black, Dan A. & Smith, J.A.Jeffrey A., 2004. "How robust is the evidence on the effects of college quality? Evidence from matching," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 121(1-2), pages 99-124.
    7. Olsen, Randall J, 1980. "A Least Squares Correction for Selectivity Bias," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 48(7), pages 1815-1820, November.
    8. Lee, David S., 2008. "Randomized experiments from non-random selection in U.S. House elections," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 142(2), pages 675-697, February.
    9. Rivers, Douglas & Vuong, Quang H., 1988. "Limited information estimators and exogeneity tests for simultaneous probit models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 347-366, November.
    10. Tao Chen & Yuanyuan Ji & Yahong Zhou & Pingfang Zhu, 2018. "Testing Conditional Mean Independence Under Symmetry," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(4), pages 615-627, October.
    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. Doko Tchatoka, Firmin & Dufour, Jean-Marie, 2020. "Exogeneity tests, incomplete models, weak identification and non-Gaussian distributions: Invariance and finite-sample distributional theory," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 218(2), pages 390-418.
    2. Black, Dan A. & Joo, Joonhwi & LaLonde, Robert & Smith, Jeffrey A. & Taylor, Evan J., 2022. "Simple Tests for Selection: Learning More from Instrumental Variables," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    3. Firmin Doko Tchatoka & Jean-Marie Dufour, 2016. "Exogeneity tests, weak identification, incomplete models and non-Gaussian distributions: Invariance and finite-sample distributional theory," School of Economics and Public Policy Working Papers 2016-01, University of Adelaide, School of Economics and Public Policy.
    4. Guilhem Bascle, 2008. "Controlling for endogeneity with instrumental variables in strategic management research," Post-Print hal-00576795, HAL.
    5. Firmin DOKO TCHATOKA & Jean-Marie DUFOUR, 2016. "Exogeneity Tests, Incomplete Models, Weak Identification and Non-Gaussian Distributions : Invariance and Finite-Sample Distributional Theory," Cahiers de recherche 14-2016, Centre interuniversitaire de recherche en économie quantitative, CIREQ.
    6. Jinhyun Lee, 2013. "A Consistent Nonparametric Bootstrap Test of Exogeneity," Discussion Paper Series, School of Economics and Finance 201316, School of Economics and Finance, University of St Andrews.
    7. Verbeek, M.J.C.M. & Nijman, T.E., 1992. "Incomplete panels and selection bias : A survey," Discussion Paper 1992-7, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    8. Awudu Abdulai & Wallace Huffman, 2014. "The Adoption and Impact of Soil and Water Conservation Technology: An Endogenous Switching Regression Application," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 90(1), pages 26-43.
    9. Orazio Attanasio & Peter Levell & Hamish Low & Virginia Sánchez-Marcos, 2015. "Aggregating Elasticities: Intensive and Extensive Margins of Female Labour Supply," NBER Working Papers 21315, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Takashi Yamagata & Chris Orme, 2005. "On Testing Sample Selection Bias Under the Multicollinearity Problem," Econometric Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(4), pages 467-481.
    11. de Luna, Xavier & Johansson, Per, 2012. "Testing for Nonparametric Identification of Causal Effects in the Presence of a Quasi-Instrument," IZA Discussion Papers 6692, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    12. Joonkyu Choi & Veronika Penciakova & Felipe Saffie, 2021. "Political Connections, Allocation of Stimulus Spending, and the Jobs Multiplier," FRB Atlanta Working Paper 2021-13, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.
    13. Nathan Canen & Kristopher Ramsay, 2024. "Quantifying theory in politics: Identification, interpretation, and the role of structural methods," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 36(4), pages 301-327, October.
    14. Benítez-Silva, Hugo & Eren, Selçuk & Heiland, Frank & Jiménez-Martín, Sergi, 2015. "How well do individuals predict the selling prices of their homes?," Journal of Housing Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 12-25.
    15. Sungbae An & Yongsung Chang & Sun-Bin Kim, 2009. "Can a Representative-Agent Model Represent a Heterogeneous-Agent Economy," American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 1(2), pages 29-54, July.
    16. Kirill S. Evdokimov & Andrei Zeleneev, 2023. "Simple Estimation of Semiparametric Models with Measurement Errors," Papers 2306.14311, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2025.
    17. Boswijk, H. Peter & Franses, Philip Hans & van Dijk, Dick, 2010. "Cointegration in a historical perspective," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 158(1), pages 156-159, September.
    18. Eliasson, Kent, 2006. "The Role of Ability in Estimating the Returns to College Choice: New Swedish Evidence," Umeå Economic Studies 691, Umeå University, Department of Economics.
    19. Asare, Eric & Segarra, Eduardo, 2017. "Adoption and Extent of Adoption of Georeferenced Grid Soil Sampling Technology by Cotton Producers in the Southern US," 2017 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2017, Mobile, Alabama 252773, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    20. Sarah Brown & Jennifer Roberts & Karl Taylor, 2010. "Reservation wages, labour market participation and health," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 173(3), pages 501-529, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    unconfoundedness; diagnostic test;

    JEL classification:

    • C21 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Cross-Sectional Models; Spatial Models; Treatment Effect Models
    • C29 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Other

    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:pra:mprapa:99921. 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: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.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.