Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Using register data to estimate causal effects of interventions: An ex post synthetic control-group approach
Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Sociology. Linköping University, Sweden.
Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Sociology.
2017 (English)In: Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, ISSN 1403-4948, E-ISSN 1651-1905, Vol. 45, no 17, p. 50-55Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Aims: It is common in the context of evaluations that participants have not been selected on the basis of transparent participation criteria, and researchers and evaluators many times have to make do with observational data to estimate effects of job training programs and similar interventions. The techniques developed by researchers in such endeavours are useful not only to researchers narrowly focused on evaluations, but also to social and population science more generally, as observational data overwhelmingly are the norm, and the endogeneity challenges encountered in the estimation of causal effects with such data are not trivial. The aim of this article is to illustrate how register data can be used strategically to evaluate programs and interventions and to estimate causal effects of participation in these. Methods: We use propensity score matching on pretreatment-period variables to derive a synthetic control group, and we use this group as a comparison to estimate the employment-treatment effect of participation in a large job-training program. Results: We find the effect of treatment to be small and positive but transient. Conclusions: Our method reveals a strong regression to the mean effect, extremely easy to interpret as a treatment effect had a less advanced design been used (e.g. a within-subjects panel data analysis), and illustrates one of the unique advantages of using population register data for research purposes.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2017. Vol. 45, no 17, p. 50-55
Keywords [en]
Programme evaluation, job training, unemployment, endogeneity, confounding, propensity score matching, synthetic control group, casual effects, regression to the mean
National Category
Sociology (excluding Social Work, Social Psychology and Social Anthropology)
Research subject
Sociology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:su:diva-145696DOI: 10.1177/1403494817702338ISI: 000405007800010OAI: oai:DiVA.org:su-145696DiVA, id: diva2:1134059
Available from: 2017-08-17 Created: 2017-08-17 Last updated: 2017-08-21Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Bygren, MagnusSzulkin, Ryszard
By organisation
Department of Sociology
In the same journal
Scandinavian Journal of Public Health
Sociology (excluding Social Work, Social Psychology and Social Anthropology)

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 289 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf