The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Accounting for No-Shows in Experimental Evaluation Designs
Abstract
This article examines how to estimate the effect of a program in the presence of no- shows—persons who are assigned to the program but do not participate. The article briefly discusses the methodological problems involved, describes two current experimental evaluations that are subject to these problems, presents several estimators that overcome these problems, outlines the conditions necessary for these estimators to be feasible, and describes two extensions of the analysis that illustrate a potentially broad range of further applications.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“One analytical approach to accounting for incomplete adoption is to use Complier Average Causal Effect (commonly known as CACE) modeling (3, 9, 60).”
From An Overview of Research and Evaluation Designs for Dissemination and Implementation (2017) · cites this paper as [9]
Citations
Cites
Attrition Bias in Experimental and Panel Data: The Gary Income Maintenance Experiment
Hausman, J. A., & Wise, D. A. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1914193 · Cited by 483
Campbell, D. T. (1971) · Urban Affairs Quarterly · doi:10.1177/107808747100700202 · Cited by 47
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Metcalf, C.E., 1979, A Research Design for the Employment Opportumty Pilot Projects
- Smith, D.A., 1983, The Downriver Community Conference Economic Readjustment Activity Program: Impact Findings from the First Phase of Operations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Recent Developments in the Econometrics of Program Evaluation
Imbens, G. W., & Wooldridge, J. M. (2009) · Journal of Economic Literature · doi:10.1257/jel.47.1.5 · Cited by 4,926
The Economics and Econometrics of Active Labor Market Programs
Heckman, J. J., Lalonde, R. J., & Smith, J. A. (1999) · Handbook of labour economics · doi:10.1016/s1573-4463(99)03012-6 · Cited by 3,027
Angrist, J. D., & Krueger, A. B. (2001) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.15.4.69 · Cited by 2,355
(2009) · Cited by 2,013
Policies to Foster Human Capital
Heckman, J. J. (1999) · Research in Economics · doi:10.1006/reec.1999.0225 · Cited by 1,824
“Source: Bloom et al. (1993). Enrollee estimates obtained using the procedure in Bloom (1984). †At any time during the follow-up period.”
Method
Metadata
- Authors
- Bloom, H. S.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Bloom, Howard S.
- Venue
- Evaluation Review
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1984-04
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 225-246
- ISSN
- 0145-4692 (ISSN-L)
- 0193-841X
- 1552-3926
- OpenAlex
- W2046165968
- Cited by
- 532
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 29 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 38
- FWCI
- 1.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Evaluation Review (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
- Social Sciences › Public Administration › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
- Keywords
- missed appointments, program participation, program evaluation, experimental design, estimation bias, non-compliance, treatment effect estimation
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
