Abstract
In many cases, the presence of confounding factors makes the identification of causal effects rather difficult. One solution to avoid potential bias is to run a randomized controlled experiment, either in the form of a clinical trial or a field experiment (Sect. 13.1). The basic tenet is to assign the subjects to a control group and a treatment group, such that they share similar characteristics on average (Sect. 13.2). The impact of an intervention is then obtained by comparing the average outcomes observed in both groups and testing whether the difference is significant (Sect. 13.3). An important issue is to assess the risks of type I and type II errors, i.e. the probabilities that the statistical test yields the wrong conclusion (Sect. 13.4). Controlling for those risks implies finding the minimum number of subjects to enroll in the experiment to achieve a given statistical power (Sect. 13.5). Another issue is to select an indicator (e.g., absolute risk reduction, relative risk ratio, odds ratio, number needed to treat) in order to point out the number of successes and failures in each group (Sect. 13.6). The analysis can also be extended to a more general framework were the timing of event occurrence is explicitly accounted for, via the estimation of survival curves with the Kaplan-Meier approach (Sect. 13.7) and the implementation of the Mantel-Haenszel test (Sect. 13.8).
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Attanasio, O., Meghir, C., & Santiago, A. (2012). Education choices in Mexico: Using a structural model and a randomized experiment to evaluate PROGRESA. Review of Economic Studies, 79, 37ā66.
Cochran, W. (1954). Some methods for strengthening the common chi-square tests. Biometrics, 10, 417ā451.
CrĆ©pon, B., Duflo, E., Gurgand, M., Rathelot, R., & Zamora, P. (2014). Do labor market policies have displacement effects? Evidence from a clustered randomized experiment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 128, 531ā580.
Cutler, S., & Ederer, F. (1958). Maximum utilization of the lifetable method in analyzing survival. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 8, 699ā712.
Deaton, A. (2010). Instruments, randomization, and learning about development. Journal of Economic Literature, 48, 424ā455.
Deaton, A., & Cartwright, N. (2016). Understanding and misunderstanding randomized control trials. National Bureau of Economic Research w22595.
Duflo, E., Glennester, R., & Kremer, M. (2007). Using randomization in development economics research: A toolkit. In P. Schultz & J. Strauss (Eds.), Handbook of development economics (vol. 4, pp. 3895ā3962).
Duflo, E., Dupas, P., & Kremer, M. (2015). Education, HIV, and early fertility: Experimental evidence from Kenya. American Economic Review, 105, 2757ā2797.
Favereau, J. (2016). On the Analogy between Field Experiments in Economics and Clinical Trials in Medicine. Journal of Economic Methodology, 23, 203ā222.
Freedman, B. (1987). Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. New England Journal of Medicine, 317, 141ā145.
Friedman, L., Furberg, C., & DeMets, D. (2010). Fundamentals of clinical trials. Heidelberg: Springer.
Kaplan, E., & Meier, P. (1958). Non parametric estimation from incomplete observations. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 53, 457ā481.
Mantel, N., & Haenszel, W. (1969). Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 22, 719ā748.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
Ā© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Josselin, JM., Le Maux, B. (2017). Randomized Controlled Experiments. In: Statistical Tools for Program Evaluation . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52827-4_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52827-4_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-52826-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-52827-4
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)