Using split samples to improve inference on causal effects

Political Analysis

Volumn 25, Issue 4, 2017, Pages 465-482

  Fafchamps, Marcel ^a   Labonne, Julien ^b  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85047525738     PISSN: 10471987     EISSN: 14764989     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/pan.2017.22     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Anderson, Michael L. 2008. Multiple inference and gender di-erences in the e-ects of early intervention: A reevaluation of the abecedaian, perry preschool, and early training projects. Journal of the American Statistical Association 103(484):1481-1495.
2. Athey, Susan, and Guido Imbens. 2015. Machine learning methods for estimating heterogeneous causal e-ects. Stanford University. Mimeo.
3. Bell, Mark, and Nicholas Miller. 2015. Questioning the e-ect of nuclear weapons on conflict. Journal of Conflct Resolution 59(1):74-92.
4. Belloni, Alexandre, Victor Chernozhukov, and Christian Hansen. 2014. High-dimensional methods and inference on structural and treatment e-ects. Journal of Economic Perspectives 28(2):29-50.
5. Benjamini, Yoav, Abba M. Krieger, and Daniel Yekutieli. 2006. Adaptive linear step-up procedures that control the false discovery rate. Biometrika 93(3):491-507.
6. Benjamini, Yoav, and Daniel Yekutieli. 2001. The control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing under dependency. The Annals of Statistics 29(4):1165-1188.
7. Benjamini, Yoav, and Yosef Hochberg. 1995. Controlling the false discovery rate: A pactrical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological) 57(1):289-300.
8. Blair, Graeme, Jasper Cooper, Alexander Coppock, and Macartan Humphreys. 2016. Declaring and diagnosing research designs. Columbia University. Mimeo.
9. Brodeur, Abel, Mathias Le, Marc Sangnier, and Yanos Zylberberg. 2016. Star wars: The empirics strike back.
10. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 8(1):1-32.
11. Co-man, Lucas C., and Muriel Niederle. 2015. Pre-Analysis plans are not the solution replications might be. Journal of Economic Perspectives 29(3):81-98.
12. Dunning, Thad. 2016. Transparency, replication, and cumulative learning: What experiments alone cannot achieve. Annual Review of Political Science 19(1):S1-S23.
13. Einav, Liran, and Jonathan Levin. 2014. Economics in the age of big data. Science 346(6210):715.
14. Fachamps, Marcel, and Julien Labonne. 2017. Replication data for "Using split samples to improve inference on causal e-ects". doi:10.7910/DVN/Q0IXQY, Harvard Dataverse, V1.
15. Findley, Michael G., Nathan M. Jensen, Edmund J. Malesky, and Thomas B. Pepinsky. Forthcoming. Can results-free review reduce publication bias? The results and implications of a pilot study. Comparative Political Studies.
16. Franco, Annie, Neil Malhotra, and Gabor Simonovits. 2014. Publication bias in the social sciences: Unlocking the file drawer. Science 345(6203):1502-1505.
17. Gelman, Andrew. 2014. Preregistration: What's in it for you? http://andrewgelman.com/2014/03/10/preregistration-whats/.
18. Gelman, Andrew. 2015. The connection between varying treatment e-ects and the crisis of unreplicable research. Journal of Management 41(2):632-643.
19. Gelman, Andrew, John Carlin, Hal Stern, David Dunson, Aki Vehtari, and Donald Rubin. 2013. Bayesian data analysis. 3rd edn. London: Chapman and Hall/CRC.
20. Gerber, Alan, and Neil Malhotra. 2008. Do statistical reporting standards a-ect what is published? Publication bias in two leading political science journals. Quaterly Journal of Political Science 3(3):313-326.
21. Gerber, Alan S., Donald P. Green, and David Nickerson. 2001. Testing for Publication Bias in Political Science. Political Analysis 9(4):385-392.
22. Green, Don, Macartan Humphreys, and Jenny Smith. 2013. Read it, understand it, believe it, use it: Principles and proposals for a more credible research publication. Columbia University. mimeo.
23. Grimmer, Justin. 2015. We are all social scientists now: How big data, machine learning, and causal inference work together. PS: Political Science & Politics 48(1):80-83.
24. Hainmueller, Jens, and Chad Hazlett. 2013. Kernel regularized least squares: Reducing misspecification bias with a flexible and interpretable machine learning approach. Political Analysis 22(2):143-168.
25. Hartman, Erin, and F. Daniel Hidalgo. 2015. What's the alternative?: An equivalence approach to balance and placebo tests. UCLA. mimeo.
26. Humphreys, Macartan, Raul Sanchez de la Sierra, and Peter van der Windt. 2013. Fishing, commitment, and communication: A proposal for comprehensive nonbinding research registration. Political Analysis 21(1):1-20.
27. Ioannidis, John. 2005. Why most published research findings are false. PLOS Medicine 2(8):e124.
28. Laitin, David D. 2013. Fisheries management. Political Analysis 21:42-47.
29. Leamer, Edward. 1974. False models and post-data model construction. Journal of the American Statistical Association 69(345):122-131.
30. Leamer, Edward. 1978. Specification searches. Ad hoc inference with nonexperimental data. New York, NY: Wiley.
31. Leamer, Edward. 1983. Let's take the Con out of econometrics. American Economic Review 73(1):31-43.
32. Lin, Winston, and Donald P. Green. 2016. Standard operating procedures: A safety net for pre-Analysis plans. PS: Political Science & Politics 49(3):495-500.
33. Lovell, M. 1983. Data mining. Review of Economic and Statistics 65(1):1-12.
34. Miguel, E., C. Camerer, K. Casey, J. Cohen, K. M. Esterling, A. Gerber, R. Glennerster, D. P. Green, M. Humphreys, G. Imbens, D. Laitin, T. Madon, L. Nelson, B. A. Nosek, M. Petersen, R. Sedlmayr, J. P. Simmons, U. Simonsohn, and M. Van der Laan. 2014. Promoting transparency in social science research. Science 343(6166):30-31.
35. Monogan, James E. 2015. Research preregistration in political science: The case, counterarguments, and a response to critiques. PS: Political Science & Politics 48(3):425-429.
36. Nyhan, Brendan. 2015. Increasing the credibility of political science research: A proposal for journal reforms. PS: Political Science & Politics 48(S1):78-83.
37. Olken, Benjamin. 2015. Pre-Analysis plans in economics. Journal of Economic Perspectives 29(3):61-80.
38. Pepinsky, Tom. 2013. The perilous peer review process. http://tompepinsky.com/2013/09/16/the-perilouspeer-review-process/.
39. Rauchhaus, Robert. 2009. Evaluating the nuclear peace hypothesis a quantitative approach. Journal of Conflict Resolution 53(2):258-277.
40. Sankoh, A. J., M. F. Huque, and S. D. Dubey. 1997. Some comments on frequently used multiple endpoint adjustment methods in clinical trials. Statistics in Medicine 16(22):2529-2542.