This article presents a Stata program (sensatt) that implements the sensitivity analysis for matching estimators proposed by Ichino, Mealli, and Nannicini (Journal of Applied Econometrics, forthcoming). The analysis simulates a potential confounder to assess the robustness of the estimated treatment effects with respect to deviations from the conditional independence assumption. The program uses the commands for propensity-score matching (att*) developed by Becker and Ichino (Stata Journal 2: 358–377). I give an example by using the National Supported Work demonstration, widely known in the program evaluation literature.
AbadieA., DrukkerD., Leber HerrJ., and ImbensG. W.2004. Implementing matching estimators for average treatment effects in Stata. Stata Journal4: 290–311.
2.
AbadieA., and ImbensG. W.2006. Large sample properties of matching estimators for average treatment effects. Econometrica74: 235–267.
3.
AltonjiJ. G., ElderT. E., and TaberC. R.2005. Selection on observed and unobserved variables: Assessing the effectiveness of Catholic schools. Journal of Political Economy113: 151–184.
4.
BeckerS., and CaliendoM.2007. Sensitivity analysis for average treatment effects. Stata Journal7: 71–83.
5.
BeckerS. O., and IchinoA.2002. Estimation of average treatment effects based on propensity scores. Stata Journal2: 358–377.
6.
BlackD., and SmithJ.2004. How robust is the evidence on the effects of college quality? Evidence from matching. Journal of Econometrics121: 99–124.
7.
CaliendoM., and KopeinigS.2007. Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching. Journal of Economic Surveys. Forthcoming.
8.
DehejiaR. H., and WahbaS.1999. Causal effects in nonexperimental studies: Reevaluation of the evaluation of training programs. Journal of the American Statistical Association94: 1053–1062.
9.
DehejiaR. H.2002. Propensity score matching methods for nonexperimental causal studies. Review of Economics and Statistics84: 151–161.
10.
GastwirthJ. L., KriegerA. M., and RosenbaumP. R.1998. Dual and simultaneous sensitivity for match pairs. Biometrika85: 907–920.
11.
HeckmanJ., IchimuraH., and ToddP.1997. Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator: Evidence from evaluating a job training program. Review of Economic Studies64: 605–654.
12.
HeckmanJ.1998. Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator. Review of Economic Studies65: 261–294.
13.
IchinoA., MealliF., and NanniciniT.2007. From temporary help jobs to permanent employment: What can we learn from matching estimators and their sensitivity?Journal of Applied Econometrics. Forthcoming.
14.
ImbensG. W.2003. Sensitivity to exogenieity assumptions in program evaluation. American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings2: 126–132.
15.
ImbensG. W.2004. Nonparametric estimation of average treatment effects under exogeneity: A review. Review of Economics and Statistics86: 4–29.
16.
LaLondeR.1986. Evaluating the econometric evaluations of training programs. American Economic Review76: 604–620.
17.
LeuvenE., and SianesiB.2003. PSMATCH2: Stata module to perform full Maha-lanobis and propensity score matching, common support graphing, and covariate imbalance testing.Boston College Department of Economics, Statistical Software Components. Downloadable from http://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/s432001.html.
18.
MichalopoulosC., BloomH. S., and HillC. J.2004. Can propensity-score methods match the findings from a random assignment evaluation of mandatory welfare-to-work programs?Review of Economics and Statistics86: 156–179.
19.
RosenbaumP. R.1987a. The role of a second control group in an observational study. Statistical Science2: 292–306.
20.
RosenbaumP. R.1987b. Sensitivity analysis to certain permutation inferences in matched observational studies. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B45: 212–218.
21.
RosenbaumP. R.2002. Observational Studies. 2nd ed. New York: Springer.
22.
RosenbaumP. R., and RubinD. B.1983a. Assessing sensitivity to an unobserved binary covariate in an observational study with binary outcome. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B45: 212–218.
23.
RosenbaumP. R.1983b. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika70: 41–55.
24.
RubinD. B.1974. Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomised and non-randomised studies. Journal of Educational Psychology66: 688–701.
25.
SmithJ., and ToddP.2005. Does matching overcome Lalonde's critique of nonexperimental estimators?Journal of Econometrics125: 305–353.
