American Behavioral Scientist

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Krueger, A. B.
Right arrow Articles by Zhu, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 47, No. 5, 718-728 (2004)
DOI: 10.1177/0002764203260150

Inefficiency, Subsample Selection Bias, and Nonrobustness

A Response to Paul E. Peterson and William G. Howell

Alan B. Krueger

Pei Zhu

Princeton University

This article responds to Peterson and Howell’s (PH’s) defense of their voucher research. We show that PH’s rationales for excluding some 815 students—more than 40% of their sample—because they lacked baseline data in a randomized experiment are unconvincing. For example, PH’s assertion that students with missing baseline scores had a greater risk of mismatch is based on a misunderstanding of the way the experiment was conducted; the organization that conducted the experiment believes the procedures actually used precluded such a problem. Including students with missing baseline data renders the effect of vouchers insignificant for Black students, even using PH’s nonstandard racial classification scheme. PH also give the misleading impression that our reanalysis shows their results to be robust. In fact, only 7 out of the 27 of our estimates that did not simply reuse PH’s original, incomplete sample of Black students are positive and statistically significant.

Key Words: school vouchers • randomized experiment


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Education and Urban SocietyHome page
C. Lubienski
Marketing Schools: Consumer Goods and Competitive Incentives for Consumer Information
Education and Urban Society, November 1, 2007; 40(1): 118 - 141.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Am Educ Res JHome page
S. T. Lubienski and C. Lubienski
School Sector and Academic Achievement: A Multilevel Analysis of NAEP Mathematics Data
American Educational Research Journal, January 1, 2006; 43(4): 651 - 698.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social ScienceHome page
R. W. Pearson
Book Review: The Uneasy Partnership between Social Science and Public Policy
The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, July 1, 2005; 600(1): 157 - 173.
[PDF]

Home page
 REVIEW OF RESEARCH IN EDUCATIONHome page
H. M. Levin and C. R. Belfield
Chapter 6: The Marketplace in Education
Review of Research in Education, January 1, 2003; 27(1): 183 - 219.
[PDF]