This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Cappelleri, J. C. Articles by Reichardt, C. S. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Cappelleri, J. C. Articles by Reichardt, C. S. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Random Measurement Error Does Not Bias the Treatment Effect Estimate in the Regression-Discontinuity Design

I. The Case of No Interaction

Cornell University

William M.K. Trochim

Cornell University

T.D. Stanley

Hendrix College

Charles S. Reichardt

Universcty of Denver

A recently published Evaluation Review article (April 1990) claimed that because of random measurement error in the pretest (and the regression toward the mean that results) the estimate of the treatment effect of the regression-discontinuity (RD) design is biased A conceptual approach and a set of computer simulations are presented to arrive at the opposite conclusion: random measurement error in the pretest does not bias the estimate of the treatment effect in the RD design. This article, the first of two dealing with measurement error in the RD design, concentrates specifically on the case of no interaction between pretest and treatment on posttest. The claim that the RD effect estimate is not biased due to measurement error is in full agreement with the conclusion reached by several authors who have examined the design over the last two decades.

Evaluation Review, Vol. 15, No. 4, 395-419 (1991)
DOI: 10.1177/0193841X9101500401


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. Z. Schochet Statistical Power for Regression Discontinuity Designs in Education Evaluations Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, June 1, 2009; 34(2): 238 - 266. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Mellor and M. M. Mark A Quasi-Experimental Design for Studies on the Impact of Administrative Decisions: Applications and Extensions of the Regression-Discontinuity Design Organizational Research Methods, July 1, 1998; 1(3): 315 - 333. [Abstract]

				J. C. Cappelleri and W. M.K. Trochim Ethical and Scientific Features of Cutoff-based Designs of Clinical Trials: A Simulation Study Med Decis Making, October 1, 1995; 15(4): 387 - 394. [Abstract] [PDF]

				C. S. Reichardt, W. M.K. Trochim, and J. C. Cappelleri Reports of the Death of Regression-Discontinuity Analysis are Greatly Exaggerated Eval Rev, February 1, 1995; 19(1): 39 - 63. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. C. Cappelleri, R. B. Darlington, and W. M.K. Trochim Power Analysis of Cutoff-Based Randomized Clinical Trials Eval Rev, April 1, 1994; 18(2): 141 - 152. [Abstract] [PDF]

				W. M.K. Trochim, J. C. Cappelleri, and C. S. Reichardt Random Measurement Error Does Not Bias the Treatment Effect Estimate in the Regression-Discontinuity Design: II. When an Interaction Effect Is Present Eval Rev, October 1, 1991; 15(5): 571 - 604. [Abstract] [PDF]

				T.D. Stanley "Regression-Discontinuity Design" By Any Other Name Might Be Less Problematic Eval Rev, October 1, 1991; 15(5): 605 - 624. [Abstract] [PDF]