BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Rocio Titiunik

Rocio Titiunik contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
econ.EMMethodologyApplicationsComputation

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 19 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
5works
0followers
4topics
3close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

5 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Covariate Adjustment in Regression Discontinuity Designs

The Regression Discontinuity (RD) design is a widely used non-experimental method for causal inference and program evaluation. While its canonical formulation only requires a score and an outcome variable, it is common in empirical work to encounter RD analyses where additional variables are used for adjustment. This practice has led to misconceptions about the role of covariate adjustment in RD analysis, from both methodological and empirical perspectives. In this chapter, we review the different roles of covariate adjustment in RD designs, and offer methodological guidance for its correct use.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Regression Discontinuity Designs

The Regression Discontinuity (RD) design is one of the most widely used non-experimental methods for causal inference and program evaluation. Over the last two decades, statistical and econometric methods for RD analysis have expanded and matured, and there is now a large number of methodological results for RD identification, estimation, inference, and validation. We offer a curated review of this methodological literature organized around the two most popular frameworks for the analysis and interpretation of RD designs: the continuity framework and the local randomization framework. For each framework, we discuss three main topics: (i) designs and parameters, which focuses on different types of RD settings and treatment effects of interest; (ii) estimation and inference, which presents the most popular methods based on local polynomial regression and analysis of experiments, as well as refinements, extensions, and alternatives; and (iii) validation and falsification, which summarizes an array of mostly empirical approaches to support the validity of RD designs in practice.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Analysis of Regression Discontinuity Designs with Multiple Cutoffs or Multiple Scores

We introduce the \texttt{Stata} (and \texttt{R}) package \texttt{rdmulti}, which includes three commands (\texttt{rdmc}, \texttt{rdmcplot}, \texttt{rdms}) for analyzing Regression Discontinuity (RD) designs with multiple cutoffs or multiple scores. The command \texttt{rdmc} applies to non-cumulative and cumulative multi-cutoff RD settings. It calculates pooled and cutoff-specific RD treatment effects, and provides robust bias-corrected inference procedures. Post estimation and inference is allowed. The command \texttt{rdmcplot} offers RD plots for multi-cutoff settings. Finally, the command \texttt{rdms} concerns multi-score settings, covering in particular cumulative cutoffs and two running variables contexts. It also calculates pooled and cutoff-specific RD treatment effects, provides robust bias-corrected inference procedures, and allows for post-estimation estimation and inference. These commands employ the \texttt{Stata} (and \texttt{R}) package \texttt{rdrobust} for plotting, estimation, and inference. Companion \texttt{R} functions with the same syntax and capabilities are provided.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Extrapolating Treatment Effects in Multi-Cutoff Regression Discontinuity Designs

In non-experimental settings, the Regression Discontinuity (RD) design is one of the most credible identification strategies for program evaluation and causal inference. However, RD treatment effect estimands are necessarily local, making statistical methods for the extrapolation of these effects a key area for development. We introduce a new method for extrapolation of RD effects that relies on the presence of multiple cutoffs, and is therefore design-based. Our approach employs an easy-to-interpret identifying assumption that mimics the idea of "common trends" in difference-in-differences designs. We illustrate our methods with data on a subsidized loan program on post-education attendance in Colombia, and offer new evidence on program effects for students with test scores away from the cutoff that determined program eligibility.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Natural Experiments

The term natural experiment is used inconsistently. In one interpretation, it refers to an experiment where a treatment is randomly assigned by someone other than the researcher. In another interpretation, it refers to a study in which there is no controlled random assignment, but treatment is assigned by some external factor in a way that loosely resembles a randomized experiment---often described as an "as if random" assignment. In yet another interpretation, it refers to any non-randomized study that compares a treatment to a control group, without any specific requirements on how the treatment is assigned. I introduce an alternative definition that seeks to clarify the integral features of natural experiments and at the same time distinguish them from randomized controlled experiments. I define a natural experiment as a research study where the treatment assignment mechanism (i) is neither designed nor implemented by the researcher, (ii) is unknown to the researcher, and (iii) is probabilistic by virtue of depending on an external factor. The main message of this definition is that the difference between a randomized controlled experiment and a natural experiment is not a matter of degree, but of essence, and thus conceptualizing a natural experiment as a research design akin to a randomized experiment is neither rigorous nor a useful guide to empirical analysis. Using my alternative definition, I discuss how a natural experiment differs from a traditional observational study, and offer practical recommendations for researchers who wish to use natural experiments to study causal effects.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access