Subgroup Difference in Differences to Identify Effect Modification Without a Control Group
Open accessAbstract
Suppose it is of interest to characterize effect heterogeneity of an intervention across levels of a baseline covariate using only pre- and post- intervention outcome measurements from those who received the intervention, i.e. with no control group. For example, a researcher concerned with equity may wish to ascertain whether a minority group benefited less from an intervention than the majority group. We introduce the `subgroup parallel trends' assumption that the counterfactual untreated outcomes in each subgroup of interest follow parallel trends pre- and post- intervention. Under the subgroup parallel trends assumption, it is straightforward to show that a simple `subgroup difference in differences' (SDiD) expression (i.e., the average pre/post outcome difference in one subgroup subtracted by the average pre/post outcome difference in the other subgroup) identifies the difference between the intervention's effects in the two subgroups. This difference in effects across subgroups is identified even though the conditional effects in each subgroup are not. The subgroup parallel trends assumption is not stronger than the standard parallel trends assumption across treatment groups when a control group is available, and there are circumstances where it is more plausible. Thus, when effect modification by a baseline covariate is of interest, researchers might consider SDiD whether or not a control group is available.
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?
That control groups are not necessary to estimate heterogeneous treatment effects in DID studies was already noted before this paper by Shahn (2023) and de Chaisemartin and D'Haultfœuille (2023), in simple designs without variation in treatment intensity or timing.
“That such groups are not necessary to estimate heterogeneous treatment effects in DID studies was already noted before this paper by Shahn (2023) and de Chaisemartin and D'Haultfœuille (2023), in simple designs without variation in treatment intensity or timing.”
From Difference-in-Differences Estimators of Intertemporal Treatment Effects (2026) · cites this paper as Shahn (2023)
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Difference-in-Differences Estimators of Intertemporal Treatment Effects
de Chaisemartin, C., & D’Haultfœuille, X. (2026) · Review of Economics and Statistics · doi:10.1162/rest_a_01414 · Cited by 740 · see citing works
- Authors
- Shahn, Z.
- Corresponding author
- Shahn, Zach
- ORCID
- Shahn, Zach
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2306.11030
- OpenAlex
- W4381572071
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 2 · 2023: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
- Keywords
- effect modification, heterogeneous effects, potential outcomes, baseline covariates, equity, intervention effects, causal identification
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