Learning about treatment effects from experiments with random assignment of treatments.
The importance of social programs to a diverse population creates a legitimate concern that the findings of evaluations be widely credible. The weaker the assumptions imposed, the more widely credible are the findings. The classical argument for random assignment of treatments is viewed by many as...
| Publicado en: | Journal of Human Resources Vol. 31; pp. 709 - 734 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
University of Wisconsin Press
Fall96
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=507526606&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ssf uiTerm: 507526606 longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson) uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 0022166X JHR jtl: Journal of Human Resources issn: 0022166X maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Fall96 vid: 31 pid: 249 pub: University of Wisconsin Press artinfo: ui: 507526606 10.2307/146144 ppf: 709 ppct: 25 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T – @attributes: type: P size: 1.4MB tig: atl: Learning about treatment effects from experiments with random assignment of treatments. aug: au: Manski, Charles F. su: Evaluation research (Social action programs) Experimental design sug: subj: Evaluation research (Social action programs) Experimental design ab: The importance of social programs to a diverse population creates a legitimate concern that the findings of evaluations be widely credible. The weaker the assumptions imposed, the more widely credible are the findings. The classical argument for random assignment of treatments is viewed by many as enabling evaluation under weak assumptions, and it has generated much interest in the conduct of experiments. But the classical argument does impose assumptions, and there often is good reason to doubt their realism. The methodological research described in this article explores the inferences that may be drawn from experimental data under assumptions weak enough to yield widely credible findings. This literature has two branches. One seeks out notions of treatment effect that are identified when the experimental data are combined with weak assumptions. The canonical finding is that the average treatment effect within some context-specfic subpopulation is identified. The other branch specifies a population of a priori interest and seeks to learn about treatment effects in this population. Here the canonical finding is a bound on average treatment effects. The various approaches to the analysis of experiments are complementary from a mathematical perspective, but in tension as guides to evaluation practice. The reader of an evaluation reporting that some social program “works” or has a “positive impact” should be careful to ascertain what treatment effect has been estimated and under what assumptions. Reprinted by permission of the publisher. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: N holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|