The presentation was the fourth webinar in a series of discussions on the popular MEASURE Evaluation manual, How Do We Know If a Program Made a Difference? A Guide to Statistical Methods for Program Impact Evaluation. The webinar was also referred to as "Within Estimators."
Lucknow Call girls - 8800925952 - 24x7 service with hotel room
ย
Within Models
1. Peter M. Lance, PhD
MEASURE Evaluation
University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill
December 15, 2016
Within Models
2. Global, five-year, $180M cooperative agreement
Strategic objective:
To strengthen health information systems โ the
capacity to gather, interpret, and use data โ so
countries can make better decisions and sustain good
health outcomes over time.
Project overview
3. Improved country capacity to manage health
information systems, resources, and staff
Strengthened collection, analysis, and use of
routine health data
Methods, tools, and approaches improved and
applied to address health information challenges
and gaps
Increased capacity for rigorous evaluation
Phase IV Results Framework
43. ๐ธ ๐1 = ๐ฝ1 + ๐ฝ2 โ ๐พ1
The actual
causal effect of
P on y
44. ๐ธ ๐1 = ๐ฝ1 + ๐ฝ2 โ ๐พ1
The actual
causal effect of
P on y
The actual causal effect of
the omitted variable X on
Y
45. ๐ธ ๐1 = ๐ฝ1 + ๐ฝ2 โ ๐พ1
The actual
causal effect of
P on y
ThโEffectโ of P on x:
๐ฅ๐= ๐พ0 + ๐พ1 โ ๐๐ + ๐๐
The actual causal effect of
the omitted variable X on
Y
46. True model:
๐ = ๐ฝ0 + ๐ฝ1 โ ๐ + ๐ฝ2 โ ๐ฅ + ๐
We actually attempt to estimate:
๐ = ๐0 + ๐1 โ ๐ + ๐
Error term now contains:
๐ฝ2 โ ๐ฅ
47. True model:
๐ = ๐ฝ0 + ๐ฝ1 โ ๐ + ๐ฝ2 โ ๐ฅ + ๐
We actually attempt to estimate:
๐ = ๐0 + ๐1 โ ๐ + ๐
Error term now contains:
๐ฝ2 โ ๐ฅ
48. True model:
๐ = ๐ฝ0 + ๐ฝ1 โ ๐ + ๐ฝ2 โ ๐ฅ + ๐
We actually attempt to estimate:
๐ = ๐0 + ๐1 โ ๐ + ๐
Error term now contains:
๐ฝ2 โ ๐ฅ
49. True model:
๐ = ๐ฝ0 + ๐ฝ1 โ ๐ + ๐ฝ2 โ ๐ฅ + ๐
We actually attempt to estimate:
๐ = ๐0 + ๐1 โ ๐ + ๐
Error term now contains:
๐ฝ2 โ ๐ฅ
51. ๐ธ ๐1 = ๐ฝ1 + ๐ฝ2 โ ๐พ1
The actual
causal effect of
P on y
ThโEffectโ of P on x:
๐ฅ๐= ๐พ0 + ๐พ1 โ ๐๐ + ๐๐
The actual causal effect of
the omitted variable X on
Y
150. Big Caveats/Limitations/Drawbacks
1.Loss of information
2.Makes measurement error bias worse
3.Very limited options for limited dependent
variables
4.Rooted in a weird kind of paradox
151. Big Caveats/Limitations/Drawbacks
1.Loss of information
2.Makes measurement error bias worse
3.Very limited options for limited dependent
variables
4.Rooted in a weird kind of paradox
153. Big Caveats/Limitations/Drawbacks
1.Loss of information
2.Makes measurement error bias worse
3.Very limited options for limited dependent
variables
4.Rooted in a weird kind of paradox
160. t=2000 t=2002
True age 35 37
Measured age 33 39
Error -2 +2
Error
๐๐ซ๐ฎ๐ ๐๐ ๐
.0571 .054
Age2002-Age2000
True age difference 2
Measured age
difference
6
Error 4
Error
๐๐ซ๐ฎ๐ difference
1.5
161. Big Caveats/Limitations/Drawbacks
1.Loss of information
2.Makes measurement error bias worse
3.Very limited options for limited dependent
variables
4.Rooted in a weird kind of paradox
162. Big Caveats/Limitations/Drawbacks
1.Loss of information
2.Makes measurement error bias worse
3.Very limited options for limited dependent
variables
4.Rooted in a weird kind of paradox
185. ๐๐๐ก = ๐0 + ๐1 โ ๐๐ + ๐2 โ ๐ก + ๐3 โ ๐๐ โ ๐ก + ๐๐๐ก
Controls for
fixed (ie underlying,
not time-varying)
differences between
program participants
and
non-participants
Controls for
underlying time trend
common to
program participants
and
non-participants
186. ๐๐๐ก = ๐0 + ๐1 โ ๐๐ + ๐2 โ ๐ก + ๐3 โ ๐๐ โ ๐ก + ๐๐๐ก
Controls for
fixed (ie underlying,
not time-varying)
differences between
program participants
and
non-participants
Controls for
underlying time trend
common to
program participants
and
non-participants
187. ๐๐๐ก = ๐0 + ๐1 โ ๐๐ + ๐2 โ ๐ก + ๐3 โ ๐๐ โ ๐ก + ๐๐๐ก
Controls for
fixed (ie underlying,
not time-varying)
differences between
program participants
and
non-participants
Controls for
underlying time trend
common to
program participants
and
non-participants
Program impact
190. Bertrand, Duflo and Mullainathan
Basic Experiment:
Take a dataset (current population survey) with labor
market outcomes (ln(earnings)) for many women-years
(900,000) and โmake upโ a fake program. Then try to
evaluate the impact of these fake programs with a DID
regression.
The Result:
The null hypothesis that the policy had no effect at the 5
percent level rejected a stunning 50-70 percent of the time,
depending on the econometric approach.
197. MEASURE Evaluation is funded by the U.S. Agency
for International Development (USAID) under terms
of Cooperative Agreement AID-OAA-L-14-00004 and
implemented by the Carolina Population Center, University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partnership with ICF
International, John Snow, Inc., Management Sciences for
Health, Palladium Group, and Tulane University. The views
expressed in this presentation do not necessarily reflect
the views of USAID or the United States government.
www.measureevaluation.org