Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T09:24:37.769Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A NONPARAMETRIC TEST OF HETEROGENEITY IN CONDITIONAL QUANTILE TREATMENT EFFECTS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 March 2024

Zongwu Cai Open the ORCID record for Zongwu Cai [Opens in a new window] ,
Ying Fang Open the ORCID record for Ying Fang [Opens in a new window] ,
Ming Lin  and
Shengfang Tang
Zongwu Cai
Affiliation:
University of Kansas
Ying Fang
Affiliation:
Xiamen University
Ming Lin*
Affiliation:
Xiamen University
Shengfang Tang
Affiliation:
Jiangxi University of Finance and Economics
*
Address correspondence to Ming Lin, Wang Yanan Institute for Studies in Economics, Xiamen University, Xiamen, Fujian, China, linming50@xmu.edu.cn; Shengfang Tang, School of Finance, Jiangxi University of Finance and Economics, Nanchang, Jiangxi, China, tangshengfang@jxufe.edu.cn.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This paper proposes a nonparametric test to assess whether there exist heterogeneous quantile treatment effects (QTEs) of an intervention on the outcome of interest across different sub-populations defined by covariates of interest. Specifically, a consistent test statistic based on the Cramér–von Mises type criterion is developed to test if the treatment has a constant quantile effect for all sub-populations defined by covariates of interest. Under some regularity conditions, the asymptotic behaviors of the proposed test statistic are investigated under both the null and alternative hypotheses. Furthermore, a nonparametric Bootstrap procedure is suggested to approximate the finite-sample null distribution of the proposed test; then, the asymptotic validity of the proposed Bootstrap test is theoretically justified. Through Monte Carlo simulations, we demonstrate the power properties of the test in finite samples. Finally, the proposed testing approach is applied to investigate whether there exists heterogeneity for the QTE of maternal smoking during pregnancy on infant birth weight across different age groups of mothers.

Type
ARTICLES
Information
Econometric Theory , First View , pp. 1 - 28
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

Footnotes

The authors are grateful to the editor (Peter C. B. Phillips), the co-editor, and the two anonymous referees for their insightful comments which substantially improved the paper. This research is supported by the National Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 72033008, 72301119, 72133002, and 71988101).

References

REFERENCES

Abadie, A., Angrist, J., & Imbens, G. (2002). Instrumental variables estimates of the effect of subsidized training on the quantiles of trainee earnings. Econometrica , 70(1), 91–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abadie, A., & Imbens, G. W. (2006). Large sample properties of matching estimators for average treatment effects. Econometrica , 74(1), 235–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abadie, A., & Imbens, G. W. (2016). Matching on the estimated propensity score. Econometrica , 84(2), 781–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abrevaya, J., Hsu, Y.-C., & Lieli, R. P. (2015). Estimating conditional average treatment effects. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics , 33(4), 485–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Almond, D., & Currie, J. (2011). Killing me softly: The fetal origins hypothesis. Journal of Economic Perspectives , 25(3), 153–172.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Belloni, A., Chernozhukov, V., Fernàndez-Val, I., & Hansen, C. (2017). Program evaluation and causal inference with high-dimensional data. Econometrica , 85(1), 233–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhattacharya, R. N., & Rao, R. R. (1986). Normal approximation and asymptotic expansions . Wiley.Google Scholar
Black, S. E., Devereux, P. J., & Salvanes, K. G. (2007). From the cradle to the labor market? The effect of birth weight on adult outcomes. Quarterly Journal of Economics , 122(1), 409–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cai, Z., Fang, Y., Lin, M., & Tang, S. (2021). Estimation of partially conditional quantile treatment effect model. China Journal of Econometrics , 1(4), 741–762.Google Scholar
Cai, Z., & Xu, X. (2008). Nonparametric quantile estimations for dynamic smooth coefficient models. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 101(485), 1595–1608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, X., Linton, O., & Van Keilegom, I. (2003). Estimation of semiparametric models when the criterion function is not smooth. Econometrica , 71(5), 1591–1608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chernozhukov, V., & Hansen, C. (2005). An IV model of quantile treatment effects. Econometrica , 73(1), 245–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crump, R. K., Hotz, V. J., Imbens, G. W., & Mitnik, O. A. (2008). Nonparametric tests for treatment effect heterogeneity. Review of Economics and Statistics , 90(3), 389–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crump, R. K., Hotz, V. J., Imbens, G. W., & Mitnik, O. A. (2009). Dealing with limited overlap in estimation of average treatment effects. Biometrika , 96(1), 187–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dehejia, R. H., & Wahba, S. (1999). Causal effects in nonexperimental studies: Reevaluating the evaluation of training programs. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 94(448), 1053–1062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doksum, K. (1974). Empirical probability plots and statistical inference for nonlinear models in the two-sample case. Annals of Statistics , 2(2), 267–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donald, S. G., & Hsu, Y.-C. (2014). Estimation and inference for distribution functions and quantile functions in treatment effect models. Journal of Econometrics , 178(3), 383–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dong, C., Li, G., & Feng, X. (2019). Lack-of-fit tests for quantile regression models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B , 81(3), 629–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Escanciano, J., & Goh, S. (2014). Specification analysis of linear quantile models. Journal of Econometrics , 178(2), 495–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Firpo, S. (2007). Efficient semiparametric estimation of quantile treatment effects. Econometrica , 75(1), 259–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Firpo, S., Galvao, A. F., & Song, S. (2017). Measurement errors in quantile regression models. Journal of Econometrics , 198(1), 146–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frölich, M., & Melly, B. (2013). Unconditional quantile treatment effects under endogeneity. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics , 31(3), 346–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heckman, J., Ichimura, H., Smith, J., & Todd, P. (1998). Characterizing selection bias using experimental data. Econometrica , 66(5), 1017–1098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heckman, J. J., & Robb, R. (1985). Alternative methods for evaluating the impact of interventions: An overview. Journal of Econometrics , 30(1–2), 239–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heckman, J. J., Smith, J., & Clements, N. (1997). Making the most out of programme evaluations and social experiments: Accounting for heterogeneity in programme impacts. Review of Economic Studies , 64(4), 487–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirano, K., Imbens, G. W., & Ridder, G. (2003). Efficient estimation of average treatment effects using the estimated propensity score. Econometrica , 71(4), 1161–1189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koenker, R., & Xiao, Z. (2004). Unit root quantile autoregression inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 99(467), 775–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, M. S. (1987). Intrauterine growth and gestational duration determinants. Pediatrics , 80(4), 502–511.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
LaLonde, R. J. (1995). The promise of public sector-sponsored training programs. Journal of Economic Perspectives , 9(2), 149–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, S., Okui, R., & Whang, Y.-J. (2017). Doubly robust uniform confidence band for the conditional average treatment effect function. Journal of Applied Econometrics , 32(7), 1207–1225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, S., Song, K., & Whang, Y.-J. (2015). Uniform asymptotics for nonparametric quantile regression with an application to testing monotonicity. Preprint, arXiv:1506.05337, 1–30.Google Scholar
Lee, S., Song, K., & Whang, Y.-J. (2018). Testing for a general class of functional inequalities. Econometric Theory , 34(5), 1018–1064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, S., & Whang, Y.-J. (2009). Nonparametric tests of conditional treatment effects. CeMMAP Working Paper CWP36/09 and Cowles Foundation Discussion Paper 1740 . Yale University, pp. 1–68.Google Scholar
Lehmann, E. L. (1975). Nonparametrics: Statistical methods based on ranks . Holden-Day.Google Scholar
Rubin, D. B. (1974). Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology , 66(5), 688–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tang, S., Cai, Z., Fang, Y., & Lin, M. (2021). A new quantile treatment effect model for studying smoking effect on birth weight during mother’s pregnancy. Journal of Management Science and Engineering , 6(3), 336–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, T.-C., Shoff, C., Noah, A. J., Black, N., & Sparks, C. S. (2014). Racial segregation and maternal smoking during pregnancy: A multilevel analysis using the racial segregation interaction index. Social Science & Medicine 107 (April), 26–36. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, N., Guo, X., & Zhu, L. (2022). The role of propensity score structure in asymptotic efficiency of estimated conditional quantile treatment effect. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics , 49(2), 718–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Cai et al. supplementary material

Cai et al. supplementary material
Download Cai et al. supplementary material(File)
File 313.3 KB