Quasi-Experimental Evaluation of Alternative Sample Selection Corrections
不同样本选择校正方法的准实验评估AI 解读 ↓
本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。
DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。
引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。
关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要使用强制考试的自然实验评估样本选择偏误校正,属于微观准实验方法应用,因此归入因果推断方向。
不同样本选择校正方法的准实验评估AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
Researchers routinely use datasets where outcomes of interest are unobserved for some cases, potentially creating a sample selection problem. Statisticians and econometricians have proposed many selection correction methods to address this challenge. We use a natural experiment to evaluate different sample selection correction methods’ performance. From 2007, the state of Michigan required that all students take a college entrance exam, increasing the exam-taking rate from 64% to 99% and largely eliminating selection into exam-taking. We apply different selection correction methods, using different sets of covariates, to the selected exam score data from before 2007. We compare the estimated coefficients from the selection-corrected models to those from OLS regressions using the complete exam score data from after 2007 as a benchmark. We find that less restrictive semiparametric correction methods typically perform better than parametric correction methods but not better than simple OLS regressions that do not correct for selection. Performance is generally worse for models that use only a few discrete covariates than for models that use more covariates with less coarse distributions.