SUMMARY OF RIGOROUS IMPACT EVALUATION …
Summary of Rigorous Impact Evaluation Methodologies
| |Identifying Assumption |Data Requirements |Advantages |Disadvantages |
|Randomized Controlled Trial |No systematic differences in unobservable|At least post-intervention data on |Weakest identifying assumption of 4 |Spillovers can invalidate control group |
| |characteristics between treated & control|randomly assigned members of treated & |methods (as long as randomization |Might be politically difficult to argue |
| |groups (bolstered by showing that there |control groups (baseline helps make |successful) |in favor of randomization |
| |are no systematic differences in |identifying assumption plausible) |When budget prevents program from being |External validity can be questionable |
| |observable characteristics between | |provided to everyone simultaneously, |(was the study population representative |
| |treated & control groups) | |randomizing (either timing or in the |of the population served at scale?) |
| | | |absolute sense of who does and does not | |
| | | |get the program) is sometimes viewed as | |
| | | |the fairest way to allocate scarce | |
| | | |resources | |
|Difference-in-Difference |Whatever happened to the control group |At least pre- & post-intervention cross |Might be possible to do with existing |Identifying assumption is relatively |
| |over time is what would have happened to |sections including both treated & control|survey data |strong (need to consider all other |
| |the treated group in the absence of the |(additional pre-intervention data helps | |possible differences between the groups |
| |program |make identifying assumption plausible) | |that could have led to the observed |
| | | | |outcomes) |
|Regression Discontinuity |Those just above the threshold (the |Data on threshold qualification (already |When threshold is built into program |Only identifies program impact for those |
| |treated) and those just below (the |exists) & outcomes |design there is no need to do anything |at the threshold |
| |control) are otherwise identical | |special for evaluation | |
|Matching |After controlling for observables, |Rich data on as many observable |Might be possible to do with existing |Strong identifying assumption (even if |
| |treated & control are not systematically |characteristics as possible, large sample|survey data |they’re otherwise identical, why did some|
| |different |size (so that it is possible to find | |get program and others not?) |
| | |appropriate match) | | |
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- lemon bay high school
- summary of rigorous impact evaluation
- single sex versus coeducation schooling a systematic
- generic strategy types of competitive advantage
- pacific island countries world bank
- the impact of e learning on academic performance
- practical steps to improving retention and graduation
- building systematic theology lesson 2
- the use of service learning in
Related searches
- summary of history of philosophy
- summary of starbucks
- summary of 13 reasons why
- summary of max weber theory
- starbucks summary of the company
- brief summary of photosynthesis
- max weber summary of ideas
- summary of books of the bible pdf
- example of summary of an article
- summary of each chapter of huckleberry finn
- summary of life of jesus
- summary of the declaration of independence