ArticleHealth services research2025
Time on Your Side: Aggregating Data in Difference-In-Differences Studies.
Article in Health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Time on Your Side: Aggregating Data in Difference-In-Differences Studies.Health services research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the performance of difference-in-differences estimators fit to data aggregated to different time scales. STUDY SETTING AND
designIn simulations, we generated monthly observations for 50-100 units over 6 years from both a parametric model and a resampling simulation. The simulation scenarios varied panel balance, treatment timing, and true treatment effects. Our target parameters were static and dynamic average effects of treatment on the treated (ATT) estimated via linear regression (for common timing scenarios) and Callaway and Sant'Anna (2021) estimators (for staggered timing scenarios). We compared estimates from monthly, quarterly, and yearly data using bias, standard error, root mean squared error (RMSE), power, and Type I error. We also conducted a case study to illustrate the real-world impacts of these decisions. DATA SOURCES AND ANALYTIC SAMPLE: We used data from a study of police retraining for the resampling simulations and case study. These data included counts of use-of-force incidents and dates of training enrollment for 8614 officers each month from 2011 to 2016. PRINCIPAL
findingsResults from the simulation varied across performance metrics, estimation methods, target estimands, and data structures. In general, the choice of time aggregation was more consequential when estimating dynamic (versus static) treatment effects, in unbalanced (versus balanced) panel data, and in the resampling simulations (where data had less autocorrelation). Although time aggregation mattered little in many scenarios, coarser aggregation was preferable in resampling simulations of staggered timing scenarios. The re-analysis of police training data was sensitive to time aggregation.
conclusionsIn many scenarios, time aggregation has little impact on difference-in-differences estimators. However, when estimating dynamic effects, especially in staggered timing settings and unbalanced data, we found a tradeoff between precision and power, with finer aggregations being more powerful but less precise. In addition, estimators that use a single reference time point are more sensitive to noise in data measured at finer time scales.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.