The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
An Analysis of Sample Attrition in Panel Data: The Michigan Panel Study of Income Dynamics
Open accessAbstract
An Analysis of Sample Attrition in Panel Data: Michigan Panel Study of Income DynamicsBy 1989 the Michigan Panel Study on Income Dynamics (PSID) had experienced approximately 50 percent sample loss from cumulative attrition from its initial 1968 membership.We study the effect of this attrition on the unconditional distributions of several socioeconomic variables and on the estimates of several sets of regression coefficients.We provide a statistical framework for conducting tests for attrition bias that draws a sharp distinction between selection on unobservables and on observables and that shows that weighted least squares can generate consistent parameter estimates when selection is based on observables, even when they are endogenous.Our empirical analysis shows that attrition is highly selective and is concentrated among lower socioeconomic status individuals.We also show that attrition is concentrated among those with more unstable earnings, marriage, and migration histories.Nevertheless, we find that these variables explain very little of the attrition in the sample, and that the selection that occurs is moderated by regression-to-the-mean effects from selection on transitory components that fade over time.Consequently, despite the large amount of attrition, we find no strong evidence that attrition has seriously distorted the representativeness of the PSID through 1989, and considerable evidence that its crosssectional representativeness has remained roughly intact.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error
Heckman, J. J. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1912352 · Cited by 28,779
Cited by
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 long-run poverty and gender impacts of mobile money
Suri, T., & Jack, W. (2016) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aah5309 · Cited by 1,628
Empirical Strategies in Labor Economics
Angrist, J. D., & Krueger, A. B. (1999) · Handbook of Labor Economics · doi:10.1016/s1573-4463(99)03004-7 · Cited by 1,628
Risk Sharing and Transactions Costs: Evidence from Kenya's Mobile Money Revolution
Jack, W., & Suri, T. (2014) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.104.1.183 · Cited by 1,435
Solon, G., Haider, S. J., & Wooldridge, J. M. (2015) · Journal of Human Resources · doi:10.3368/jhr.50.2.301 · Cited by 1,367
Metadata
- Authors
- Fitzgerald, J., Gottschalk, P., & Moffitt, R.
- Venue
- National Bureau of Economic Research
- Publisher
- National Bureau of Economic Research
- Published
- 1998-02
- OpenAlex
- W3125393536
- Cited by
- 711
- References
- 1
- Type
- report
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: An Analysis of Sample Attrition in Panel Data: The Michigan Panel Study of Income Dynamics. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3386/t0220
- The paper
- Fitzgerald, J., Gottschalk, P., & Moffitt, R. (1998). An Analysis of Sample Attrition in Panel Data: The Michigan Panel Study of Income Dynamics. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/t0220
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.