Measuring the Effect of Subsidized Training Programs on Movements In and Out of Employment
Open accessAbstract
The authors estimate the effect of training on the probability of em ployment for participants in the 1976 Comprehensive Employment and Tr aining Act program. Their analysis uses Social Security earnings data from 1970 to 1979 for trainees and a comparison group. In addition t o simple pre- versus post-training comparisons of employment probabil ities for trainees and controls, the authors present logistic regress ion models with fixed and random effects for individual heterogeneity . They conclude that program participation increased the probability of employment by 2 to 5 percentage points, with larger effects for cl assroom versus nonclassroom programs. Copyright 1988 by The Econometric Society.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
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?
The first papers that mention difference-in-differences estimators in the data are Ashenfelter and Card (1985) and Card and Sullivan (1988), which appeared as NBER working papers in 1984 and 1987, respectively.
“The first papers that mention difference-in-differences estimators in our data are Ashenfelter and Card (1985) and Card and Sullivan (1988), which appeared as NBER working papers in 1984 and 1987, respectively.”
From Technology and Big Data Are Changing Economics: Mining Text to Track Methods (2020) · cites this paper as Card and Sullivan (1988)
The section beginning “An obvious question” explicitly presents a difference-in-differences estimator for employment rates, supporting the identification of Card and Sullivan as a paper that mentions the method. The passages do not establish that it was among the first papers to do so or that it appeared as an NBER working paper in 1987; no page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 14
- Ashenfelter, 0. (1975). "The Effect of Manpower Training on Earnings: Preliminary Results.' Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Annual Winter Meetings of the Industrial Relations Research Association: 252-260. _______________________ "Estimating the Effect of Training Programs on Earnings." Review of Economics and Statistics, 60 (1): 47-57.
- ____________________ and D. Card (1985). "Using the Longitudinal Structure of Earnings to Estimate the Effect of Training Programs." Review of Economics and Statistics, 67 (4): 648-660.
- Bahadur, RR. (1954). "Sufficiency and Statistical Decision Functions." Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 25: 423-462.
- Bassi, L. (1983). "The Effect of CETA on the Post-Program Earnings of Participants." The Journal of Human Resources, 18 (Fall 1983): 539-556.
- Chamberlain, G. (1980). "Analysis of Covariance with Qualitative Data." Review of Economic Studies, 47:225-238.
- by Farrell Bloch. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
- Kiefer, J. and J. Wolfowitz (1956). 'Consistency of the Maximum Likelihood Estimator in the Presence of Infinitely Many Incidental Parameters." Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 27:887-906.
- Lindsay, B. (1983a). "The Geometry of Mixture Likelihoods, Park 1." Annals of Statistics, 1:86-94.
- __________________(1983b). "The Geometry of Mixture Likelihoods, Part 11." Annals of Statistics 11.
- Laird, N. (1978). "Nonparametric Maximum Likelihood Estimation of a Mixing Distribution." Journal of the American Statistical Association, 73:805-811.
- LaLonde R. (1986). "Evaluating the Econometric Evaluations of Training Programs with Experimental Data." American Economic Review, 76 (4): 604-620.
- Rosenbaum, P. and D. Rubin (1984). "Reducing Bias in Observational Studies Using Subclassification on the Propensity Score." .Journal of the American Statistical Association, 79:516-524.
- Rosenbaum, P. and D. Rubin (1985). "Constructing a Control Group Using Multivariate Matched Sampling Methods that Incorporate the Propensity Score." The American Statistician, 39 (1):33-38.
- Socia1 Security Bulletin Annual Statistical Supplement (1983).
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 · see citing works
Does matching overcome lalonde’s critique of nonexperimental estimators?
A. Smith, J., & E. Todd, P. (2005) · Journal of Econometrics · doi:10.1016/j.jeconom.2004.04.011 · Cited by 3,176 · see citing works
Nonparametric Estimation of Average Treatment Effects Under Exogeneity: A Review
Imbens, G. W. (2004) · Review of Economics and Statistics · doi:10.1162/003465304323023651 · Cited by 2,994 · see citing works
Causal effects in nonexperimental studies: Reevaluating the evaluation of training programs
Dehejia, R. H., & Wahba, S. (1999) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1999.10473858 · Cited by 2,395 · see citing works
The Nonparametric Identification of Treatment Effects in Duration Models
Abbring, J. H., & van den Berg, G. J. (2003) · Econometrica · doi:10.1111/1468-0262.00456 · Cited by 616 · see citing works
Attanasio, O., Kugler, A., & Meghir, C. (2011) · American Economic Journal: Applied Economics · doi:10.1257/app.3.3.188 · Cited by 332 · see citing works
The Labor Market Impacts of Youth Training in the Dominican Republic
Card, D., Ibarrarán, P., Regalia, F., Rosas-Shady, D., & Soares, Y. (2011) · Journal of Labor Economics · doi:10.1086/658090 · Cited by 225 · see citing works
Self-citationTechnology and Big Data Are Changing Economics: Mining Text to Track Methods
Currie, J., Kleven, H., & Zwiers, E. (2020) · AEA Papers and Proceedings · doi:10.1257/pandp.20201058 · Cited by 86 · see citing works
- Authors
- Card, D., & Sullivan, D.
- ORCID
- Card, David
- Venue
- Econometrica
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1988-05
- Volume
- 56
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 497
- ISSN
- 0012-9682 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2890260147
- Cited by
- 212
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 1.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.nber.org
- Locations
- Econometrica (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Labor market dynamics and wage inequality
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Education and Labor Relations
- Social Sciences › Education › Education Systems and Policy
- Keywords
- employment effects, Comprehensive Employment and Training Act, job training, program participation, individual heterogeneity, fixed and random effects models, labor market outcomes
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
