Cited by 58Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceLabor market dynamics and wage inequality

Sensitivity to Missing Data Assumptions: Theory and an Evaluation of the U.S. Wage Structure

Open access
Kline, Patrick, Santos, Andres·2013·Quantitative Economics

Abstract

This paper develops methods for assessing the sensitivity of empirical conclusions regarding conditional distributions to departures from the missing at random (MAR) assumption.We index the degree of nonignorable selection governing the missing data process by the maximal Kolmogorov-Smirnov distance between the distributions of missing and observed outcomes across all values of the covariates.Sharp bounds on minimum mean square approximations to conditional quantiles are derived as a function of the nominal level of selection considered in the sensitivity analysis and a weighted bootstrap procedure is developed for conducting inference.Using these techniques, we conduct an empirical assessment of the sensitivity of observed earnings patterns in U.S. Census data to deviations from the MAR assumption.We find that the well documented increase in the returns to schooling between 1980 and 1990 is relatively robust to deviations from the missing at random assumption except at the lowest quantiles of the distribution, but that conclusions regarding heterogeneity in returns and changes in the returns function between 1990 and 2000 are very sensitive to departures from ignorability.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3982/qe176

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Similar breakdown concepts appear in the partial identification settings of Horowitz and Manski (1995), Kline and Santos (2013), Manski and Pepper (2018), and Masten and Poirier (2020).

    “similar”

    From A More Credible Approach to Parallel Trends (2023) · cites this paper as Kline and Santos (2013)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kline, P., & Santos, A.
Affiliations
  • National Bureau of Economic Research (US)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
Venue
Quantitative Economics
Published
2013-07
Volume
4
Issue
2
Pages
231-267
ISSN
1759-7323 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1492151992
Cited by
58
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 2
FWCI
3.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Quantitative Economics (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Econstor (Econstor) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
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 › Labor market dynamics and wage inequality
Keywords
sensitivity analysis, wage distribution, returns to education, conditional quantiles, Kolmogorov-Smirnov distance, weighted bootstrap, selection bias

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