Analysis of Cluster-Randomized Experiments: A Comparison of Alternative Estimation Approaches

Analysts of cluster-randomized field experiments have an array of estimation techniques to choose from. Using Monte Carlo simulation, we evaluate the properties of point estimates and standard errors (SEs) generated by ordinary least squares (OLS) as applied to both individual-level and cluster-level data. We also compare OLS to alternative random effects estimators, such as generalized least squares (GLS). Our simulations assess efficiency across a variety of scenarios involving varying sample sizes and numbers of clusters. Our results confirm that conventional OLS SEs are severely biased downward and that, for all estimators, gains in efficiency come mainly from increasing the number of clusters, not increasing the number of individuals within clusters. We find relatively minor differences across alternative estimation approaches, but GLS seems to enjoy a slight edge in terms of the efficiency of its point estimates and the accuracy of its SEs. We illustrate the application of alternative estimation approaches using a clustered experiment in which Rock the Vote TV advertisements were used to encourage young voters in 85 cable TV markets to vote in the 2004 presidential election.

[1]  D. Green,et al.  Correction to Gerber and Green (2000), Replication of Disputed Findings, and Reply to Imai (2005) , 2005, American Political Science Review.

[2]  Jeffrey M. Wooldridge,et al.  Cluster-Sample Methods in Applied Econometrics , 2003 .

[3]  Jessica B. Janega,et al.  Design and analysis of group-randomized trials: a review of recent practices. , 2004, American journal of public health.

[4]  W. Rogers Regression standard errors in clustered samples , 1994 .

[5]  M. Arellano,et al.  Computing Robust Standard Errors for Within-Groups Estimators , 2009 .

[6]  B. Leupen,et al.  Design and analysis , 1997 .

[7]  R L Williams,et al.  A Note on Robust Variance Estimation for Cluster‐Correlated Data , 2000, Biometrics.

[8]  J Cornfield,et al.  Randomization by group: a formal analysis. , 1978, American journal of epidemiology.

[9]  Donald P. Green,et al.  The effects of canvassing, direct mail, and telephone contact on voter turnout: A field experiment , 2000 .

[10]  P. J. Huber The behavior of maximum likelihood estimates under nonstandard conditions , 1967 .

[11]  D. Green,et al.  The Effects of Canvassing, Telephone Calls, and Direct Mail on Voter Turnout: A Field Experiment , 2000, American Political Science Review.

[12]  D. Green,et al.  Dirty Pool , 2001, International Organization.

[13]  A. Donner,et al.  Pitfalls of and controversies in cluster randomization trials. , 2004, American journal of public health.

[14]  Jerome Cornfield,et al.  SYMPOSIUM ON CHD PREVENTION TRIALS: DESIGN ISSUES IN TESTING LIFE STYLE INTERVENTIONRANDOMIZATION BY GROUP: A FORMAL ANALYSIS , 1978 .

[15]  W. Greene,et al.  计量经济分析 = Econometric analysis , 2009 .

[16]  D. Green,et al.  Get Out the Vote!: How to Increase Voter Turnout , 2004 .

[17]  H. White A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity , 1980 .

[18]  Samuel J. Eldersveld,et al.  Experimental Propaganda Techniques and Voting Behavior , 1956, American Political Science Review.

[19]  Brent R. Moulton An Illustration of a Pitfall in Estimating the Effects of Aggregate Variables on Micro Unit , 1990 .

[20]  Allan Donner,et al.  Design and Analysis of Cluster Randomization Trials in Health Research , 2001 .

[21]  Léonard Wantchekon,et al.  Clientelism and Voting Behavior: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Benin , 2003 .

[22]  S. Raudenbush Statistical analysis and optimal design for cluster randomized trials , 1997 .

[23]  Kevin Arceneaux,et al.  Using Cluster Randomized Field Experiments to Study Voting Behavior , 2005 .

[24]  David M. Murray,et al.  Design and Analysis of Group- Randomized Trials , 1998 .

[25]  Susan D. Hyde Explaining the causes and consequences of internationally monitored elections , 2006 .