Bookmark and Share

Notice: On March 31, it was announced that Statalist is moving from an email list to a forum. The old list will shut down on April 23, and its replacement, statalist.org is already up and running.


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: st: Finite population correction with clustering of SE at a different level than the strata


From   Steve Samuels <sjsamuels@gmail.com>
To   statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
Subject   Re: st: Finite population correction with clustering of SE at a different level than the strata
Date   Wed, 6 Jun 2012 15:18:31 -0400

Inference can also be based on the treatment randomization (e.g.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8804140), no superpopulation needed. Randomization-based hypothesis tests would be done on village-level estimates, and confidence intervals calculated by inverting the tests.  

There is, of course, extra information about individual households that can be mined. The village-to-village contamination that Ole reports is a problem for which I have no advice. 

Steve
sjsamuels@gmail.com

On Jun 6, 2012, at 7:00 AM, Ole Dahl Rasmussen wrote:

Dear Austin

Thanks for your response. Let me try to clarify.

I'm running a randomized trial. 23 villages do not get treatment. So there's not complete correlation between interested and treatment. 23 villages do get treatment, which is an offer to participate in a microfinance intervention. Interest was elicited in all village prior to randomization. The regression is supposed to give the intent-to-treat estimate and I could IV for the effect of treatment on the treated, except that I have contamination.

Best,
Ole





© Copyright 1996–2014 StataCorp LP   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   Site index