CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 812Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceSpatial and Panel Data Analysis

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 79 of the 80 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Models for Sample Selection Bias

Winship, Christopher, Mare, Robert D.·1992·Annual Review of Sociology
DOI 10.1146/annurev.so.18.080192.001551
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

When observations in social research are selected so that they are not independent of the outcome variables in a study, sample selection leads to biased inferences about social processes. Nonrandom selection is both a source of bias in empirical research and a fundamental aspect of many social processes. This chapter reviews models that attempt to take account of sample selection and their applications in research on labor markets, schooling, legal processes, social mobility, and social networks. Variants of these models apply to outcome variables that are censored or truncated—whether explicitly or incidentally—and include the tobit model, the standard selection model, models for treatment effects in quasi-experimental designs, and endogenous switching models. Heckman’s two-stage estimator is the most widely used approach to selection bias, but its results may be sensitive to violations of its assumptions about the way that selection occurs. Recent econometric research has developed a wide variety of promising approaches to selection bias that rely on considerably weaker assumptions. These include a number of semiand nonparametric approaches to estimating selection models, the use of panel data, and the analyses of bounds of estimates. The large number of available methods and the difficulty of modelling selection indicate that researchers should be explicit about the assumptions behind their methods and should present results that derive from a variety of methods.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1146/annurev.so.18.080192.001551

Cites

79 of 79 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 812

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Winship, C., & Mare, R. D.
Affiliations
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
ORCID
Winship, Christopher
Venue
Annual Review of Sociology
Publisher
Annual Reviews
Published
1992-08
Volume
18
Issue
1
Pages
327-350
ISSN
  • 0360-0572 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-2115
DOI
10.1146/annurev.so.18.080192.001551
OpenAlex
W2011111286
Cited by
812
References
80
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 34 · 2015: 30 · 2014: 42 · 2013: 42 · 2012: 32
FWCI
8.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Annual Review of Sociology (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Spatial and Panel Data Analysis
Keywords
sample selection bias, selection model, Tobit model, endogenous switching regression, panel data, treatment effect bounds, labor market, school education, legal procedure, social mobility, social networks

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