1 resultado para Impact evaluation
em National Center for Biotechnology Information - NCBI
Filtro por publicador
- JISC Information Environment Repository (1)
- Repository Napier (2)
- ABACUS. Repositorio de Producción Científica - Universidad Europea (1)
- Aberdeen University (3)
- Aberystwyth University Repository - Reino Unido (2)
- Academic Research Repository at Institute of Developing Economies (4)
- Acceda, el repositorio institucional de la Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria. España (1)
- AMS Tesi di Dottorato - Alm@DL - Università di Bologna (19)
- Aquatic Commons (9)
- ArchiMeD - Elektronische Publikationen der Universität Mainz - Alemanha (2)
- Archimer: Archive de l'Institut francais de recherche pour l'exploitation de la mer (1)
- Archive of European Integration (12)
- Archivo Digital para la Docencia y la Investigación - Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad del País Vasco (2)
- Aston University Research Archive (50)
- Biblioteca de Teses e Dissertações da USP (2)
- Biblioteca Digital da Produção Intelectual da Universidade de São Paulo (22)
- Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações Eletrônicas da UERJ (1)
- BORIS: Bern Open Repository and Information System - Berna - Suiça (37)
- Brock University, Canada (9)
- Bucknell University Digital Commons - Pensilvania - USA (1)
- Cambridge University Engineering Department Publications Database (9)
- CentAUR: Central Archive University of Reading - UK (41)
- Central European University - Research Support Scheme (1)
- Chinese Academy of Sciences Institutional Repositories Grid Portal (5)
- Cochin University of Science & Technology (CUSAT), India (6)
- Comissão Econômica para a América Latina e o Caribe (CEPAL) (22)
- CORA - Cork Open Research Archive - University College Cork - Ireland (4)
- Cornell: DigitalCommons@ILR (1)
- Corvinus Research Archive - The institutional repository for the Corvinus University of Budapest (2)
- Dalarna University College Electronic Archive (3)
- Deakin Research Online - Australia (139)
- DI-fusion - The institutional repository of Université Libre de Bruxelles (1)
- Digital Commons @ DU | University of Denver Research (1)
- Digital Commons at Florida International University (11)
- Digital Repository at Iowa State University (2)
- DigitalCommons - The University of Maine Research (1)
- DigitalCommons@The Texas Medical Center (24)
- DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln (1)
- Duke University (6)
- eResearch Archive - Queensland Department of Agriculture; Fisheries and Forestry (10)
- FAUBA DIGITAL: Repositorio institucional científico y académico de la Facultad de Agronomia de la Universidad de Buenos Aires (1)
- Greenwich Academic Literature Archive - UK (3)
- Helda - Digital Repository of University of Helsinki (7)
- Hospital Prof. Dr. Fernando Fonseca - Portugal (1)
- Indian Institute of Science - Bangalore - Índia (10)
- Instituto Politécnico do Porto, Portugal (4)
- Ministerio de Cultura, Spain (1)
- National Center for Biotechnology Information - NCBI (1)
- Open University Netherlands (2)
- Plymouth Marine Science Electronic Archive (PlyMSEA) (1)
- Portal de Revistas Científicas Complutenses - Espanha (1)
- QUB Research Portal - Research Directory and Institutional Repository for Queen's University Belfast (53)
- Queensland University of Technology - ePrints Archive (124)
- ReCiL - Repositório Científico Lusófona - Grupo Lusófona, Portugal (1)
- Repositório digital da Fundação Getúlio Vargas - FGV (18)
- Repositório Institucional da Universidade de Aveiro - Portugal (3)
- Repositório Institucional da Universidade de Brasília (1)
- Repositório Institucional da Universidade Federal de São Paulo - UNIFESP (1)
- Repositório Institucional UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista "Julio de Mesquita Filho" (44)
- Research Open Access Repository of the University of East London. (2)
- RUN (Repositório da Universidade Nova de Lisboa) - FCT (Faculdade de Cienecias e Technologia), Universidade Nova de Lisboa (UNL), Portugal (5)
- SAPIENTIA - Universidade do Algarve - Portugal (3)
- School of Medicine, Washington University, United States (1)
- Scielo Uruguai (1)
- Universidad de Alicante (4)
- Universidad del Rosario, Colombia (7)
- Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (22)
- Universidade Estadual Paulista "Júlio de Mesquita Filho" (UNESP) (1)
- Universidade Federal do Pará (1)
- Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN) (1)
- Universitat de Girona, Spain (2)
- Universitätsbibliothek Kassel, Universität Kassel, Germany (3)
- Université de Lausanne, Switzerland (5)
- Université de Montréal (1)
- Université de Montréal, Canada (14)
- University of Michigan (99)
- University of Queensland eSpace - Australia (17)
- University of Washington (2)
- WestminsterResearch - UK (6)
Resumo:
This paper decomposes the conventional measure of selection bias in observational studies into three components. The first two components are due to differences in the distributions of characteristics between participant and nonparticipant (comparison) group members: the first arises from differences in the supports, and the second from differences in densities over the region of common support. The third component arises from selection bias precisely defined. Using data from a recent social experiment, we find that the component due to selection bias, precisely defined, is smaller than the first two components. However, selection bias still represents a substantial fraction of the experimental impact estimate. The empirical performance of matching methods of program evaluation is also examined. We find that matching based on the propensity score eliminates some but not all of the measured selection bias, with the remaining bias still a substantial fraction of the estimated impact. We find that the support of the distribution of propensity scores for the comparison group is typically only a small portion of the support for the participant group. For values outside the common support, it is impossible to reliably estimate the effect of program participation using matching methods. If the impact of participation depends on the propensity score, as we find in our data, the failure of the common support condition severely limits matching compared with random assignment as an evaluation estimator.