Estimation Methods
Estimation methods broadly follow evaluation designs. Different designs require different estimation methods to measure changes in well-being from the counterfactual. In experimental and quasi-experimental evaluation, the estimated impact of the intervention is calculated as the difference in mean outcomes between the treatment group (those receiving the intervention) and the control or comparison group (those who don’t). This method is also called randomised control trials (RCT). According to an interview with Jim Rough, former representant of the American Evaluation Assosiciation, in the magazine D+C Development and Cooperation this method doesn't work for complex, multilayer matters. The single difference estimator compares mean outcomes at end-line and is valid where treatment and control groups have the same outcome values at baseline. The difference-in-difference (or double difference) estimator calculates the difference in the change in the outcome over time for treatment and comparison groups, thus utilizing data collected at baseline for both groups and a second round of data collected at end-line, after implementation of the intervention, which may be years later.
Impact Evaluations which is has to be compare average outcomes in the treatment group, irrespective of beneficiary participation (also referred to as ‘compliance’ or ‘adherence’), to outcomes in the comparison group are referred to as intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses. Impact Evaluations which compare outcomes among beneficiaries who comply or adhere to the intervention in the treatment group to outcomes in the control group are referred to as treatment-on-the-treated (TOT) analyses. ITT therefore provides a lower-bound estimate of impact, but is arguably of greater policy relevance than TOT in the analysis of voluntary programs.
Read more about this topic: Impact Evaluation
Famous quotes containing the words estimation and/or methods:
“... it would be impossible for women to stand in higher estimation than they do here. The deference that is paid to them at all times and in all places has often occasioned me as much surprise as pleasure.”
—Frances Wright (1795–1852)
“I think it is a wise course for laborers to unite to defend their interests.... I think the employer who declines to deal with organized labor and to recognize it as a proper element in the settlement of wage controversies is behind the times.... Of course, when organized labor permits itself to sympathize with violent methods or undue duress, it is not entitled to our sympathy.”
—William Howard Taft (1857–1930)