English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

In this paper we revisit some common recommendations regarding the analysisof matched-pair and stratified experimental designs in the presence ofattrition. Our main objective is to clarify a number of well-known claims aboutthe practice of dropping pairs with an attrited unit when analyzingmatched-pair designs. Contradictory advice appears in the literature aboutwhether or not dropping pairs is beneficial or harmful, and stratifying intolarger groups has been recommended as a resolution to the issue. To addressthese claims, we derive the estimands obtained from the difference-in-meansestimator in a matched-pair design both when the observations from pairs withan attrited unit are retained and when they are dropped. We find limitedevidence to support the claims that dropping pairs helps recover the averagetreatment effect, but we find that it may potentially help in recovering aconvex weighted average of conditional average treatment effects. We reportsimilar findings for stratified designs when studying the estimands obtainedfrom a regression of outcomes on treatment with and without strata fixedeffects.

Revisiting the Analysis of Matched-Pair and Stratified Experiments in the Presence of Attrition