In addition to existing model specification tests based on over identifying information from pre-program periods, this paper conducts a new nonparametric test based on the concept of unconditional bounding. This test has the advantage that it does not require pre-program information on participants. The nonparametric bounding test yields similar information about model misspecification to the standard test based on over identifying information. As an illustration, we apply the test to administrative records from the Jobs First experiment in Connecticut. Records on other welfare recipients are used to provide quasi-experimental panel regression estimates of the impact of time limiting benefits on labor market earnings.
AminiS.M. and ParmeterC.F., Bayesian Model Averaging in R, Journal of Economic and Social Measurement36(4) (2011), 253-287.
2.
AndersonL.B. and DelgadoM.S., Another Round of Fraternity Membership and Binge Drinking, Journal of Economic and Social Measurement35(1/2) (2010), 129-147.
3.
BloomH., ScrivenerS., MichalopoulosC., MorrisP., HendraR., Adamas-CiardulloD., WalterJ. and VargasW., Jobs First Final Report on Connecticut's Welfare Reform Initiative, Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, New York, New York, 2002.
4.
ChernozhukovV., LeeS. and RosenA.M., Intersection Bounds: Estimation and Inference, Econometrica81 (2013), 667-737.
5.
CristiaJ. and SchwabishJ.A., Measurement Error in the SIPP: Evidence from Administrative Matched Records, Journal of Economic and Social Measurement34(1) (2009), 1-17.
6.
CohenS.B. and WunL.-M., A Comparison of Household and Medical Provider Reported Health Care Utilization and An Estimation Strategy to Correct for Response Error, Journal of Economic and Social Measurement30 (2005), 115-126.
7.
DehejiaR. and WahbaS., Causal Effects in Non-Experimental Studies: Reevaluating the Evaluation of Training Programs, Journal of the American Statistical Association94 (1999), 1053-62.
8.
DehejiaR. and WahbaS., Propensity Score-Matching Methods for Nonexperimental Causal Studies, Review of Economics and Statistics84(1) (2002), 151-161.
9.
DehejiaR., Practical Propensity Score Matching: A Reply to Smith and Todd, Journal of Econometrics125 (2005), 355-364.
10.
HeckmanJ.J. and HotzV.J., Choosing Among Alternative Nonexperimental Methods for Estimating the Impact of Social Programs: The Case of Manpower Training, Journal of the American Statistical Association84(408) (1989), 862-877.
11.
HeckmanJ.J., IchimuraH. and ToddP.E., Matching as an Econometric Evaluation Estimator: Evidence from Evaluating a Job Training Programme, The Review of Economic Studies64(4) (1997), 605-654.
12.
HeckmanJ.J., IchimuraH. and ToddP.E., Matching as an Econometric Evaluation Estimator, The Review of Economic Studies65(2) (1998), 261-294.
13.
HeckmanJ.J., IchimuraH., SmithJ. and ToddP.E., Characterizing Selection Bias Using Experimental Data, Econometrica66(5) (1998), 1017-1098.
14.
ImbensG.W. and WooldridgeJ.M., Recent Developments in Econometrics of Program Evaluation, Journal of Economic Literature47(1) (2009), 5-86.
15.
KristensenN. and Westergaard-NielsenN., A Large Scale Validation Study of Measurement Errors in Longitudingal Survey Data, Journal of Economic and Social Measurement32 (2007), 65-92.
16.
LaLondeR.J., Evaluating the Econometric Evaluations of Training Programs with Experimental Data, American Economic Review76(4) (1986), 604-620.
17.
ManskiC.F., The Anatomy of the Selection Problem, Journal of Human Resources24(3) (1989a), 343-360.
18.
ManskiC.F., Nonparametric Bounds on Treatment Effects, University of Wisconsin, Social Science Research Insitute Working Paper 8909, 1989b.
19.
ManskiC.F., Nonparametric Bounds on Treatment Effects, American Economic Review80(2) (1990), 319-323.
20.
McCulloughB.D., Wilkonsin's Tests and Econometric Software, Journal of Economic and Social Measurement29(1-3) (2004), 261-270.
21.
PlotzkeM.R., KlermanJ.A. and DavernM., How Similar are Different Sources of CHIP Enrollment Data?Journal of Economic and Social Measurement36(3) (2011), 213-225.
22.
StokesH.S., The Sensitivity of Econometric Results to Alternative Implementations of Least Squares, Journal of Economic and Social Measurement30 (2005), 9-38.
23.
WahbaG., A Polynomial Algorithm for Density Estimation, The Annals of Mathematical Statistics42(6) (1971), 1870-1886.
24.
ZiliakJ.P., Income, Program Participation, Poverty, and Financial Vulnerability: Research and Data Needs, Journal of Economic and Social Measurement40(1-4) (2015), 27-68.
