Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,003

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evaluation Methods for Non‐Experimental Data

Open access
Blundell, Richard, Costa Dias, Monica·2000·Fiscal Studies

Abstract

This paper presents a review of non‐experimental methods for the evaluation of social programmes. We consider matching and selection methods and analyse each for cross‐section, repeated cross‐section and longitudinal data. The methods are assessed drawing on evidence from labour market programmes in the UK and in the US.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1475-5890.2000.tb00031.x

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 1,003

Metadata

Authors
Blundell, R., & Costa Dias, M.
Venue
Fiscal Studies
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2000-12
Volume
21
Issue
4
Pages
427-468
ISSN
  • 0143-5671 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-5890
OpenAlex
W2008458109
Cited by
1,003
References
4
FWCI
19.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evaluation Methods for Non‐Experimental Data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1475-5890.2000.tb00031.x
The paper
Blundell, R., & Costa Dias, M. (2000). Evaluation Methods for Non‐Experimental Data. Fiscal Studies. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5890.2000.tb00031.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.