Inference in differences-in-differences with few treated groups and heteroskedasticity

Differences-in-Differences (DID) is one of the most widely used identification strategies in applied economics. However, how to draw inferences in DID models when there are few treated groups remains an open question. We show that the usual inference methods used in DID models might not perform well when there are few treated groups and errors are heteroskedastic. In particular, we show that when there is variation in the number of observations per group, inference methods designed to work when there are few treated groups tend to (under-) over-reject the null hypothesis when the treated groups are (large) small relative to the control groups. This happens because larger groups tend to have lower variance, generating heteroskedasticity in the group x time aggregate DID model. We provide evidence from Monte Carlo simulations and from placebo DID regressions with the American Community Survey (ACS) and the Current Population Survey (CPS) datasets to show that this problem is relevant even in datasets with large numbers of observations per group. We then derive an alternative inference method that provides accurate hypothesis testing in situations where there are few treated groups (or even just one) and many control groups in the presence of heteroskedasticity. Our method assumes that we know how the heteroskedasticity is generated, which is the case when it is generated by variation in the number of observations per group. With many pre-treatment periods, we show that this assumption can be relaxed. Instead, we provide an alternative application of our method that relies on assumptions about stationarity and convergence of the moments of the time series. Finally, we consider two recent alternatives to DID when there are many pre-treatment groups. We extend our inference method to linear factor models when there are few treated groups. We also propose a permutation test for the synthetic control estimator that provided a better heteroskedasticity correction in our simulations than the test suggested by Abadie et al. (2010).

Permutation-based stochastic ordering using pairwise comparisons

The topic of this work concerns nonparametric permutation-based methods aiming to find a ranking (stochastic ordering) of a given set of groups (populations), gathering together information from multiple variables under more than one experimental designs. The problem of ranking populations arises in several fields of science from the need of comparing G>2 given groups or treatments when the main goal is to find an order while taking into account several aspects. As it can be imagined, this problem is not only of theoretical interest but it also has a recognised relevance in several fields, such as industrial experiments or behavioural sciences, and this is reflected by the vast literature on the topic, although sometimes the problem is associated with different keywords such as: "stochastic ordering", "ranking", "construction of composite indices" etc., or even "ranking probabilities" outside of the strictly-speaking statistical literature. The properties of the proposed method are empirically evaluated by means of an extensive simulation study, where several aspects of interest are let to vary within a reasonable practical range. These aspects comprise: sample size, number of variables, number of groups, and distribution of noise/error. The flexibility of the approach lies mainly in the several available choices for the test-statistic and in the different types of experimental design that can be analysed. This render the method able to be tailored to the specific problem and the to nature of the data at hand. To perform the analyses an R package called SOUP (Stochastic Ordering Using Permutations) has been written and it is available on CRAN.

Working in groups

This chapter is a condensation of a guide written by the chapter authors for both university teachers and students (Fowler et al., 2006). All page references given in this chapter are to this guide, unless otherwise stated. University students often work in groups. It may be a formal group (i.e. one that has been formed for a group presentation, writing a report, or completing a project) or an informal group (i.e. some students have decided to form a study group or undertake research together). Whether formal or informal, this chapter aims to make working in groups easier for you. Health care professionals also often work in groups. Yes, working in groups will extend well beyond your time at university. In fact, the skills and abilities to work effectively in groups are some of the most sought-after attributes in health care professionals. It seems obvious, then, that taking the opportunity to develop and enhance your skills and abilities for working in groups is a wise choice.

A comparison of the hazard perception ability of matched groups of healthy drivers aged 35 to 55, 65 to 74, and 75 to 84 years

We examined differences in response latencies obtained during a validated video-based hazard perception driving test between three healthy, community-dwelling groups: 22 mid-aged (35-55 years), 34 young-old (65-74 years), and 23 old-old (75-84 years) current drivers, matched for gender, education level, and vocabulary. We found no significant difference in performance between mid-aged and young-old groups, but the old-old group was significantly slower than the other two groups. The differences between the old-old group and the other groups combined were independently mediated by useful field of view (UFOV), contrast sensitivity, and simple reaction time measures. Given that hazard perception latency has been linked with increased crash risk, these results are consistent with the idea that increased crash risk in older adults could be a function of poorer hazard perception, though this decline does not appear to manifest until age 75+ in healthy drivers.

Demographic category membership and leadership in small groups : a social identity analysis

Developing the social identity theory of leadership (e.g., [Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 184–200]), an experiment (N=257) tested the hypothesis that as group members identify more strongly with their group (salience) their evaluations of leadership effectiveness become more strongly influenced by the extent to which their demographic stereotype-based impressions of their leader match the norm of the group (prototypicality). Participants, with more or less traditional gender attitudes (orientation), were members, under high or low group salience conditions (salience), of non-interactive laboratory groups that had “instrumental” or “expressive” group norms (norm), and a male or female leader (leader gender). As predicted, these four variables interacted significantly to affect perceptions of leadership effectiveness. Reconfiguration of the eight conditions formed by orientation, norm and leader gender produced a single prototypicality variable. Irrespective of participant gender, prototypical leaders were considered more effective in high then low salience groups, and in high salience groups prototypical leaders were more effective than less prototypical leaders. Alternative explanations based on status characteristics and role incongruity theory do not account well for the findings. Implications of these results for the glass ceiling effect and for a wider social identity analysis of the impact of demographic group membership on leadership in small groups are discussed.

Critique groups : a technique for the author’s toolbox?

With a lack of places to gain an education in the craft of romance writing, novelists have few places to turn to gain real feedback. This paper investigates an alternative to textbooks, conferences, and workshops through an examination of the role provided to the writer by critique groups. How these groups work, how they benefit an author, and the critique groups as a whole are discussed. This work studies the form of Peer Assessment and Learning (PAL) and compares the technique used by educational institutions all over the world with the practice of author groups critiquing their own work. The research shows how a critique group can assist a writer to learn, grow and develop, helping to enhance the writer’s skills through constructive feedback, which gives them confidence to sell their work.