ArticleJournal of the American Statistical Association2025
Design-Based Uncertainty for Quasi-Experiments.
Article in Journal of the American Statistical Association, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Difference-in-Differences for Health Policy and Practice: A Review of Modern Methods.Statistics in medicine · 2025Review
- Investigating the complexity of naloxone distribution: Which policies matter for pharmacies and potential recipients.Journal of health economics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Design-based frameworks of uncertainty are frequently used in settings where the treatment is (conditionally) randomly assigned. This article develops a design-based framework suitable for analyzing quasi-experimental settings in the social sciences, in which the treatment assignment can be viewed as the realization of some stochastic process but there is concern about unobserved selection into treatment. In our framework, treatments are stochastic, but units may differ in their probabilities of receiving treatment, thereby allowing for rich forms of selection. We provide conditions under which the estimands of popular quasi-experimental estimators correspond to interpretable finite-population causal parameters. We characterize the biases and distortions to inference that arise when these conditions are violated. These results can be used to conduct sensitivity analyses when there are concerns about selection into treatment. Taken together, our results establish a rigorous foundation for quasi-experimental analyses that more closely aligns with the way empirical researchers discuss the variation in the data. Supplementary materials for this article are available online, including a standardized description of the materials available for reproducing the work.
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.