ScholarGate
어시스턴트

방법 비교

선택한 방법을 나란히 검토하세요. 서로 다른 행은 강조 표시됩니다.

강건한 반사실적 영향 평가×이중차분법 (Diff-in-Diff)×
분야인과추론계량경제학
계열Regression modelRegression model
기원 연도2010s1994
창시자European Commission evaluation community; Pellegrini, Ferrara and colleaguesCard & Krueger (canonical 1994 application); Angrist & Pischke (textbook treatment)
유형Robustness-validated causal evaluationCausal inference / panel regression
원전Bia, M., Flores, C. A., Flores-Lagunes, A., & Mattei, A. (2014). A Stata package for the application of semiparametric estimators of dose–response functions. Stata Journal, 14(3), 580–604. link ↗Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J.-S. (2009). Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion. Princeton University Press. ISBN: 978-0691120355
별칭Robust CIE, Sensitivity-checked CIE, Multi-method counterfactual evaluation, Robustness-validated impact evaluationdiff-in-diff, DiD, Farkların Farkı (Diff-in-Diff)
관련55
요약Robust Counterfactual Impact Evaluation (Robust CIE) strengthens causal impact estimates by combining multiple quasi-experimental estimators, placebo tests, and formal sensitivity analyses. Rather than relying on a single method, it cross-validates findings across approaches — such as matching, difference-in-differences, and regression discontinuity — to ensure that conclusions do not depend on any single methodological choice.Difference-in-Differences is a causal-inference method that estimates the effect of an intervention by comparing how a treatment group and a control group change over time. Made famous by Card and Krueger's 1994 minimum-wage study and developed in Angrist and Pischke's Mostly Harmless Econometrics, it isolates the treatment effect as the difference between the two groups' before-after changes.
ScholarGate데이터셋
  1. v1
  2. 2 출처
  3. PUBLISHED
  1. v1
  2. 2 출처
  3. PUBLISHED

검색으로 이동 슬라이드 다운로드

ScholarGate방법 비교: Robust Counterfactual Impact Evaluation · Difference-in-Differences. 2026-06-17에 다음에서 검색함: https://scholargate.app/ko/compare