IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pri/indrel/203.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Case for Evaluating Training Programs with Randomized Trials

Author

Listed:
  • Orley Ashenfelter

    (Princeton University)

Abstract

This brief paper presents the reasons that I have come to conclude that the evaluation of the economic benefits of training programs will be greatly enhanced by the use of classical experimental methods. In particular, I am convinced that some of these training programs should be operated so that control and experimental groups are selected by ran- dom assignment (randomized trials). It follows that a simple comparison of earnings, employment, and other outcomes as between control and experimental groups subsequent to participation in the experimental program will provide a simple and credible estimate of program success (or failure). The principal reason why randomized trials should be used in this field is that too much of the non-experimental estimation of the effects of training programs seems dependent on elements of model specification that cannot be subjected to powerful statistical tests. Moreover, these specification tests are merely necessary and not sufficient for the acceptability of a particular non-experimental estimation method, as an extensive example due to LaLonde demonstrates.

Suggested Citation

  • Orley Ashenfelter, 1986. "The Case for Evaluating Training Programs with Randomized Trials," Working Papers 583, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..
  • Handle: RePEc:pri:indrel:203
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://dataspace.princeton.edu/bitstream/88435/dsp01ht24wj42v/1/203.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Joshua D. Angrist & Jörn-Steffen Pischke, 2010. "The Credibility Revolution in Empirical Economics: How Better Research Design Is Taking the Con out of Econometrics," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 24(2), pages 3-30, Spring.
    2. David Card & Jochen Kluve & Andrea Weber, 2010. "Active Labour Market Policy Evaluations: A Meta-Analysis," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 120(548), pages 452-477, November.
    3. David Card, 2022. "Design-Based Research in Empirical Microeconomics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 112(6), pages 1773-1781, June.
    4. repec:zbw:rwirep:0086 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Aistov, Andrey & Aleksandrova, Ekaterina, 2016. "Time-distributed difference-in-differences approach: The case of wage returns to training," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 43, pages 5-28.
    6. repec:mpr:mprres:4778 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Schneider Hilmar & Uhlendorff Arne & Zimmermann Klaus F., 2013. "Ökonometrie vs. Projektdesign: Lehren aus der Evaluation eines Modellprojekts zur Umsetzung des Workfare-Konzepts," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 233(1), pages 65-85, February.
    8. David Card & Jochen Kluve & Andrea Weber, 2018. "What Works? A Meta Analysis of Recent Active Labor Market Program Evaluations," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 16(3), pages 894-931.
    9. Schneider, Hilmar & Uhlendorff, Arne & Zimmermann, Klaus F., 2010. "Mit Workfare aus der Sozialhilfe? Lehren aus einem Modellprojekt," IZA Standpunkte 33, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    10. Boris Salazar-Trujillo & Daniel Otero Robles, 2019. "La revolución empírica en economía," Apuntes del Cenes, Universidad Pedagógica y Tecnológica de Colombia, vol. 38(68), pages 15-48, July.
    11. Peter Hull & Michal Kolesár & Christopher Walters, 2022. "Labor by design: contributions of David Card, Joshua Angrist, and Guido Imbens," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 124(3), pages 603-645, July.
    12. Reis Mauricio, 2015. "Vocational Training and Labor Market Outcomes in Brazil," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 15(1), pages 377-405, January.
    13. Arni, Patrick, 2012. "Kausale Evaluation von Pilotprojekten: Die Nutzung von Randomisierung in der Praxis," IZA Standpunkte 52, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    14. George Julnes & Lawrence B. Mohr, 1989. "Analysis of No-Difference Findings in Evaluation Research," Evaluation Review, , vol. 13(6), pages 628-655, December.
    15. David Card & Jochen Kluve & Andrea Weber, 2009. "Active Labor Market Policy Evaluations – A Meta-analysis," Ruhr Economic Papers 0086, Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Universität Dortmund, Universität Duisburg-Essen.
    16. Charles Bellemare & Steeve Marchand & Bruce Shearer, 2016. "Structural Estimation and Experiments: Applications to Contracting Models," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 172(2), pages 342-363, June.
    17. Deborah Peikes & Sean Orzol & Lorenzo Moreno & Nora Paxton, "undated". "State Partnership Initiative: Selection of Comparison Groups for the Evaluation and Selected Impact Estimates," Mathematica Policy Research Reports f8760335b9ab4a39bdf2c3533, 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:pri:indrel:203. 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: Bobray Bordelon (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/irprius.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.