当前位置: X-MOL 学术Evaluation Review › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Using Bayesian Correspondence Criteria to Compare Results From a Randomized Experiment and a Quasi-Experiment Allowing Self-Selection.
Evaluation Review ( IF 3.0 ) Pub Date : 2018-04-01 , DOI: 10.1177/0193841x18789532
David M Rindskopf 1 , William R Shadish 2 , M H Clark 3
Affiliation  

Background: Randomized experiments yield unbiased estimates of treatment effect, but such experiments are not always feasible. So researchers have searched for conditions under which randomized and nonrandomized experiments can yield the same answer. This search requires well-justified and informative correspondence criteria, that is, criteria by which we can judge if the results from an appropriately adjusted nonrandomized experiment well-approximate results from randomized experiments. Past criteria have relied exclusively on frequentist statistics, using criteria such as whether results agree in sign or statistical significance or whether results differ significantly from each other. Objectives: In this article, we show how Bayesian correspondence criteria offer more varied, nuanced, and informative answers than those from frequentist approaches. Research design: We describe the conceptual bases of Bayesian correspondence criteria and then illustrate many possibilities using an example that compares results from a randomized experiment to results from a parallel nonequivalent comparison group experiment in which participants could choose their condition. Results: Results suggest that, in this case, the quasi-experiment reasonably approximated the randomized experiment. Conclusions: We conclude with a discussion of the advantages (computation of relevant quantities, interpretation, and estimation of quantities of interest for policy), disadvantages, and limitations of Bayesian correspondence criteria. We believe that in most circumstances, the advantages of Bayesian approaches far outweigh the disadvantages.

中文翻译:

使用贝叶斯对应标准比较随机实验和允许自选的准实验的结果。

背景:随机实验得出的治疗效果无偏估计,但此类实验并不总是可行的。因此,研究人员一直在寻找可以使随机和非随机实验产生相同答案的条件。此搜索需要充分合理且信息丰富的对应标准,即可以用来判断经过适当调整的非随机实验的结果与随机实验的结果是否近似的标准。过去的标准仅使用频率统计,使用诸如结果是否在符号或统计意义上一致或结果是否彼此显着不同的标准。目标:在本文中,我们展示了贝叶斯对应标准如何提供更多变化,细微差别,以及比常客方法更有用的答案。研究设计:我们描述了贝叶斯对应标准的概念基础,然后使用一个示例比较了许多可能性,该示例将随机实验的结果与并行非等效比较组实验的结果进行比较,在该比较组中参与者可以选择自己的条件。结果:结果表明,在这种情况下,准实验可以合理地近似随机实验。结论:我们在最后讨论了贝叶斯对应标准的优点(相关量的计算,解释和对政策感兴趣量的估计),缺点和局限性。我们认为,在大多数情况下,贝叶斯方法的优点远大于缺点。我们描述了贝叶斯对应标准的概念基础,然后使用一个示例比较了许多可能性,该示例将随机实验的结果与并行非等效比较组实验的结果进行比较,在该比较组中参与者可以选择自己的条件。结果:结果表明,在这种情况下,准实验可以合理地近似随机实验。结论:我们在最后讨论了贝叶斯对应标准的优点(相关量的计算,解释和对政策感兴趣量的估计),缺点和局限性。我们认为,在大多数情况下,贝叶斯方法的优点远大于缺点。我们描述了贝叶斯对应标准的概念基础,然后使用一个示例比较了许多可能性,该示例将随机实验的结果与并行非等效比较组实验的结果进行比较,在该比较组中参与者可以选择自己的条件。结果:结果表明,在这种情况下,准实验可以合理地近似随机实验。结论:我们在最后讨论了贝叶斯对应标准的优点(相关量的计算,解释和对政策感兴趣量的估计),缺点和局限性。我们认为,在大多数情况下,贝叶斯方法的优点远大于缺点。
更新日期:2018-04-01
down
wechat
bug