Comparing Predictive Accuracy
Francis Diebold () and
Roberto Mariano ()
No 169, NBER Technical Working Papers from National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc
Using research designs patterned after randomized experiments, many recent economic studies examine outcome measures for treatment groups and comparison groups that are not randomly assigned. By using variation in explanatory variables generated by changes in state laws, government draft mechanisms, or other means, these studies obtain variation that is readily examined and is plausibly exogenous. This paper describes the advantages of these studies and suggests how they can be improved. It also provides aids in judging the validity of inferences they draw. Design complications such as multiple treatment and comparison groups and multiple pre- or post-intervention observations are advocated.
JEL-codes: C1 C53 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (23) Track citations by RSS feed
Published as Journal of Business and Economic Statistics (1995), vol. 13, pp. 253-265.
Downloads: (external link)
Journal Article: Comparing Predictive Accuracy (2002)
Journal Article: Comparing Predictive Accuracy (1995)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:nbr:nberte:0169
Ordering information: This working paper can be ordered from
Access Statistics for this paper
More papers in NBER Technical Working Papers from National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc National Bureau of Economic Research, 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A.. Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by ().