Monotonic Selection Bounds Adjustment
RCTReview
Standard test score comparisons between voucher winners and losers suffer from selection bias when vouchers increase the proportion of lower-ability marginal students who stay in school and take standardized tests.
Picture this
Think of a running coach whose new training program keeps slower runners from quitting the team. If team speed is measured without adjusting for the fact that slower runners now participate in time trials, overall average team speed appears lower than it actually is. Bounds adjustment recalculates score distributions to reveal the true performance gain.
What the evidence says
Unconditional reading test score differences of 2.06 points increased to an upper bound estimate of 4.36 points (0.33 to 0.66 standard deviations), and math test score differences increased from 0.77 to an upper bound of 2.52 points among vocational voucher winners.
- Who was studied
- N = 1,176 human secondary school voucher applicants (256 ICFES test takers analyzed) in Bogotá, Colombia.
- How
- Upper-bound selection bias adjustment under monotonicity assumptions comparing raw test score differences to adjusted potential score distributions.
What to do
Apply monotonicity-based selection bounds when evaluating educational interventions that alter standardized test participation rates among low-performing students.
From the source
"The unconditional comparisons are likely lower bounds on the true estimate since the average test scores for voucher winners are likely lower because the voucher affected the probability of taking the exam."
Are Educational Vouchers Only Redistributive?