A Convenient Omitted Variable Bias Formula for Treatment Effect Models

Clarke, Damian (2018): A Convenient Omitted Variable Bias Formula for Treatment Effect Models.

Abstract

Generally, determining the size and magnitude of the omitted variable bias (OVB) in regression models is challenging when multiple included and omitted variables are present. Here, I describe a convenient OVB formula for treatment effect models with potentially many included and omitted variables. I show that in these circumstances it is simple to infer the direction, and potentially the magnitude, of the bias. In a simple setting, this OVB is based on mutually exclusive binary variables, however I provide an extension which loosens the need for mutual exclusivity of variables, and derives the bias in difference-in-differences style models with an arbitrary number of included and excluded “treatment” indicators.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Omitted variable bias; Ordinary Least Squares Regression; Treatment Effects; Difference-in-Differences.
• Subjects: C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C1 - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General > C13 - Estimation: General; C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C2 - Single Equation Models ; Single Variables > C21 - Cross-Sectional Models ; Spatial Models ; Treatment Effect Models ; Quantile Regressions; C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C2 - Single Equation Models ; Single Variables > C22 - Time-Series Models ; Dynamic Quantile Regressions ; Dynamic Treatment Effect Models ; Diffusion Processes

References

D. Almond, L. Edlund, and M. Palme. Chernobyl’s Subclinical Legacy: Prenatal Exposure to Radioactive Fallout and School Outcomes in Sweden. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124(4):1729–1772, 2009.

A. V. Banerjee, S. Cole, E. Duflo, and L. Linden. Remedying Education: Evidence from Two Randomized Experiments in India. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(3):1235–1264, 2007.

G. Baron, E. Perrodeau, I. Boutron, and P. Ravaud. Reporting of analyses from randomized controlled trials with multiple arms: a systematic review. BMC Medicine, 11(84):1–7, 2013.

K. A. Clarke. The Phantom Menace: Omitted Variable Bias in Econometric Research. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 22(4):341–352, May 2005.

E. Duflo, R. Glennerster, and M. Kremer. Chapter 61 Using Randomization in Development Economics Research: A Toolkit. In T. P. Schultz and J. A. Strauss, editors, Handbook of Development Economics, volume 4, pages 3895-3962. Elsevier, 2007.

J. B. Gelbach. When Do Covariates Matter? And Which Ones, and How Much? Journal of Labor Economics, 34(2):509–543, 2016.

W. H. Greene. Econometric Analysis. Prentice Hill, New Jersey, 5 edition, 2002.

G. W. Imbens and J. M. Wooldridge. Recent Developments in the Econometrics of Program Evaluation. Journal of Economic Literature, 47(1):5–86, 2009.

M. Kremer. Randomized Evaluations of Educational Programs in Developing Countries: Some Lessons. American Economic Review, 93(2):102–106, May 2003.

T.-T. Lu and S.-H. Shiou. Inverses of 2 × 2 Block Matrices. Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 43(1–2):119–129, 2002.

E. Miguel and M. Kremer. Worms: Identifying Impacts on Education and Health in the Presence of Treatment Externalities. Econometrica, 72(1):159–217, 01 2004.

H. S. Najafi, S. A. Edalatpanah, and G. A. Gravvanis. An efficient method for computing the inverse of arrowhead matrices. Applied Mathematics Letters, 33(1):1–5, 2014.

H. Theil. Specification Errors and the Estimation of Economic Relationships. Revue de l’Institut International de Statistique / Review of the International Statistical Institute, 25(1/3):41–51, 1957.