Clara Augustin, Daniel Gutknecht, Cenchen Liu
arXiv 27 Jul 2025 · Econometrics
arXiv:2507.20415 · PDF · Extracted main text
This paper examines the identification and estimation of treatment effects in staggered adoption designs -- a common extension of the canonical Difference-in-Differences (DiD) model to multiple groups and time-periods -- in the presence of (time varying) misclassification of the treatment status as well as of anticipation. We demonstrate that standard estimators are biased with respect to commonly used causal parameters of interest under such forms of misspecification. To address this issue, we provide modified estimators that recover the Average Treatment Effect of observed and true switching units, respectively. Additionally, we suggest a testing procedure aimed at detecting the timing and extent of misclassification and anticipation effects. We illustrate the proposed methods with an application to the effects of an anti-cheating policy on school mean test scores in high stakes national exams in Indonesia.
appendix boundary found by appendix_titled_section at “Appendix” · 52% of the source is main text. Read the extracted text to check this.
The works this paper leans on most, across its whole bibliography — not restricted to papers in our corpus. Ranked by composite intensity, which combines how often a work is mentioned, how many sections mention it, and how much of that falls in the main text rather than the appendix.
| Reference | Intensity | Mentions | Sections | Main text | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | De Chaisemartin, C. and D'Haultefoeuille, X (2020) Two-Way Fixed Effects Estimators withHeterogeneous Treatment Effects | 0.952 | 22 | 7 | 86% |
| 2 | Bindler, Anna and Hjalmarsson, Randi (2018) How Punishment Severity Affects Jury Verdicts: Evidence from Two Natural Experiments | 0.928 | 4 | 3 | 100% |
| 3 | Berkhout, E. and Pradhan, M. and Rahmawati and Suryadarma, D. and Sw… (2024) Using technology to prevent fraud in high stakes national schoolexaminations: Evidence from Indonesia | 0.874 | 14 | 2 | 100% |
| 4 | Callaway, B. and Sant'Anna, P (2021) Difference-in-Differences with multiple time periods | 0.874 | 6 | 2 | 100% |
| 5 | Denteh, A. and Kedagni, D (2022) Misclassification in Difference-in-Differences Models | 0.737 | 3 | 2 | 100% |
| 6 | Rambachan, Ashesh and Roth, Jonathan (2023) A More Credible Approach to Parallel Trends | 0.737 | 3 | 2 | 100% |
| 7 | De Chaisemartin, C. and D'Haultefoeuille, X (2024) Under the null of valid specification, pre-tests cannotmake post-test inference liberal | 0.644 | 2 | 2 | 100% |
| 8 | Lewbel, A (2007) Estimation of Average Treatment Effects with Misclassification | 0.644 | 2 | 2 | 100% |
| 9 | Abadie, A (2005) Semiparametric difference-in-differences estimators | 0.405 | 1 | 1 | 100% |
| 10 | Barrios, J.M (2022) Occupational Licensing andAccountant Quality: Evidence fromthe 150-Hour Rule | 0.405 | 1 | 1 | 100% |
Showing the top 10 of 23 scored citations.
arXiv econ.EM papers that cite this one, ranked by how heavily they lean on it.
| Citing paper | Intensity | Mentions | Sections | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | A Joint Analysis of Sensitivity to Anticipation and Parallel Trends Violations | 0.405 | 1 | 1 |