Reports of the Death of Regression-Discontinuity Analysis are Greatly Exaggerated

Charles S. Reichardt, William M.K. Trochim and Joseph C. Cappelleri
Additional contact information
Charles S. Reichardt: University of Denver
William M.K. Trochim: Cornell University
Joseph C. Cappelleri: New England Medical Center

Evaluation Review, 1995, vol. 19, issue 1, 39-63

Abstract: Stanley (1991) argues that both random measurement error in the pretest and treatment-effect interactions bias the estimate of the treatment effect when multiple regression is used to analyze the data from a regression-discontinuity design (RDD). Stanley also argues that these biases are so severe that they should cause researchers to consider using statistical procedures other than regression analysis. The authors of the present article disagree. Curvilinearity in the regression of the posttest on pretest scores can be difficult to model, can bias the regression analysis of data from the RDD if not modeled correctly, and therefore should cause researchers to consider alternatives to regression analysis. If the regression surfaces are linear, however, unbiased estimates can be obtained easily via regression analysis, whether or not either random measurement error in the pretest or treatment-effect interactions are present. Improving upon regression analysis is a worthy goal but requires understanding just what are and are not the weaknesses of the method. In addressing these issues, this article elucidates some of the general principles that underlie the use of multiple regression to analyze data from the RDD quasi-experiment.

Date: 1995
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0193841X9501900102 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:evarev:v:19:y:1995:i:1:p:39-63

DOI: 10.1177/0193841X9501900102

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Evaluation Review
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().