Methods For Estimating Regression Discontinuity Design With Multiple Assignment Variables A Comparative Study of 3 Estimation Methods

UNIVERSITY OF ABOMEY CALAVI
***************
FACULTY OF AGRONOMIC SCIENCES
***************
Master Program in Statistics
Comparative Study of Three Estimation Methods linked

to Regression Discontinuity Design with Multiple
Assignment Variables
MSc. Thesis by
Eskender Girmay
2015-2016
Abstract
Regression discontinuity design (RDD) is originally a useful tool for evaluating a
program or policy when a single variable is used to determine program eligibility. The
RDD concept has been generalized to evaluate programs when eligibility is based on
multiple variables. Multivariate regression discontinuity design (MRDD) may provide
estimates of multiple parameters of interest (corresponding to the multiple possible
treatment contrasts and for different subpopulations) so that the analyst is faced with a
wider range of strategies for estimating treatment effects from a multiple rating score
regression discontinuity. The choice among these different strategies has important
implications for precision, bias, and generalizability. In this study, we compare the
relative performance of three MRDD estimation approaches (frontier, centering and
univariate) in Monte Carlo simulation study under different scenarios (different
dimensional space of the assignment variables, presence of white noise and presence
of correlation between score variables). Result attested that given correct model
specification with two assignment variables, all three approaches estimated treatment
effects without bias. Whatever the scenario, frontier approach provided unbiased
treatment effect and performed well even if the number of assignment variables
increases. However, when the dimension of the assignment variables exceeds two,
centering and univariate approaches yield biased treatment effect and reduced
efficiency.
Key words: Multivariate regression discontinuity design, regression discontinuity,

Rubin Causal Model, treatment effect.
iii
Table of Contents
Certification
Error! Bookmark not defined.
Abstract.iii
Acknowledgment
Error! Bookmark not defined.
Acronyms..E
rror! Bookmark not defined.
List of tables......vi
List of figuresvi
1 INTRODUCTION..1
1.1 Problem Statement .............................................................................................. 1
1.2 Objectives ............................................................................................................ 5
1.3 Research Questions ............................................................................................. 5
1.4 Research Hypotheses .......................................................................................... 5
2 PRINCIPLES OF REGRESSION DISCONTINUITY DESIGN...6
2.1 Regression Discontinuity Design with a Single Assignment Variable ........... 7
2.2 Regression Discontinuity Design with Multiple Assignment Variables ......... 9
2.3 Assumptions Required for MRDD .................................................................. 12
2.4 Estimation Strategies for Multivariate Regression Discontinuity Design ..... 15
2.4.1 Frontier Approach ........................................................................................ 17
2.4.2 Centering Approach ..................................................................................... 18
2.4.3 Univariate Approach .................................................................................... 19
2.5 Regression Discontinuity Designs in Practice ................................................ 21
3 MATERIAL AND METHODS26
3.1 Simulation Design for Monte Carlo Comparison of Approaches .................. 26
3.2 Model Specification and Data Generation with 2-4 Assignment Variables . 26
3.3 White Noise Imputation in the Data Generation Process ............................... 29
3.4 Correlation Inclusion between Assignment Variables ................................... 30
3.5 Comparison Criteria .......................................................................................... 30
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION...32
iv
4.1 Results................................................................................................................ 32
4.1.1 Effect estimates for MRDDs with different set of assignment variables . 32
4.1.2 Effect Estimates for MRDDs with different noise levels .......................... 37
4.1.3 Effect Estimates for MRDDs with different correlation among assignment
variables .................................................................................................................... 42
4.2 Discussion.......................................................................................................... 45
5 CONCLUSION.49
5.1 Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 49
5.2 Implications in practice .................................................................................... 50
6 REFERENCES..54
7 APPENDICES..57
Appendix I: R script for multivariate regression discontinuity design57
Appendix II: Graphical analysis of RDD using paramedic and non-parametric
method..62
v
List of tables
Table 1: Assumptions of regression discontinuity design ............................................ 15
Table 2: Summary of analytic approaches for analyzing sharp multivariate RDD .... 20
Table 3: MRDD estimates with different number of assignment variables for model
1(constant treatment effect) ............................................................................................. 35
Table 4: MRDD estimates with different number of assignment variables for model
2(with interaction treatment effect) ................................................................................. 36
Table 5: MRDD estimates at different noise level for model 1 with two assignment
variables (constant treatment effect) ............................................................................... 39
variables (with interaction treatment effect) ................................................................... 41
Table 7: MRDD estimates with different correlation among assignment variables
sample size for model 1(constant treatment effect) ....................................................... 43
sample size for model 1(with interaction treatment effect) ........................................... 44
List of figures
Figure 1: Discontinuity with 2 rating score variables ................................................... 14
Figure 2: Graphical visualization of treatment and control group ............................... 22
Figure 3: LATE estimation for indh dataset using parametric regression ................... 23
Figure 4: LATE estimation for indh dataset using non- parametric regression .......... 24
Figure 5: Sensitivity of the estimate to different bandwidths ...................................... 25
Figure 6: Treatment effect estimated using parametric regression .............................. 62
Figure 7: Treatment effect estimated using non parametric regression ....................... 62
vi
INTRODUCTION
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Problem Statement
Regression discontinuity design have become increasingly popular in
evaluating the impacts of social programs or in the economics literature. In a
traditional regression-discontinuity design (RDD), units are assigned to treatment and
comparison conditions solely on the basis of a single cutoff score on a continuous
assignment variable. Since the cutoff is arbitrary from the perspective of the unit of
intervention, units that are just eligible for the program or have values of the metric
close to the cutoff can be compared with units that are just not eligible, to measure
the local average treatment effect of the program.
However, units are frequently assigned to treatment and control group based
on more than one continuous assignment variables. More recent applications of RDD
in education have had multiple assignment variables and cutoff scores available for
treatment assignment. For example, Jacob and Lofgren (2004) examined the effects of
a remedial education intervention that was assigned to students based on missing a
reading cutoff, a math cutoff or both. (Gill, B., Lockwood, J. R., Martorell, F.,
Setodji, C. M., & Booker, K. 2007) examined the effects of schools failure to make
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) under a No Child Left Behind program by
missing one of 39 possible assignment criteria. Both are examples of the multivariate
regression discontinuity design (MRDD), where treatment effects may be estimated
across a multiple cutoff frontier, as opposed to a single point on the assignment
variable. Other MRDD examples in education research are by Kane (2003),
Matsudaira (2008), Papay, Murnane and Willett (in press), and van der Klaauw
(2002). With the exception of the latter, all of these studies analyze each of the
assignment rules separately. Multiple assignment variables in RDD are not unique in
education; they are also used frequently in other fields of research, such as evaluation
of labor market programs. Card, D., Chetty, R., & Weber, A (2007); Lalive and Lalive
(2008) in Marketing and other fields. In principle, they provide an opportunity to
obtain unbiased estimates of treatment effects, using the same logic as single rating
score RD designs.
However, multivariate regression discontinuity design contains some added

complexity not present in single RD designs. In such cases, where treatment
Comparative Study of Three Estimation Methods Linked To MRDD Page | 1

INTRODUCTION
assignment is determined on the basis of two (or more) continuous assignment

variable the basic logic of traditional regression discontinuity applies. Nevertheless,
regression discontinuity designs using multiple assignment variable are distinctly
different from RD designs using a single rating score in that the combination of cutoff
scores attained determines the treatment status. As a result, designs incorporating
multiple rating-score variables raise three issues not present in the single rating score
case: First, multiple rating scores may determine assignment to more than two
treatment conditions. Second, rather than providing estimates of a single estimand
(parameter of interest) for a single population (the effect of the treatment for
individuals with rating scores near the cutoff score), MRDD (multivariate regression
discontinuity design) may provide estimates of multiple Parameters of interest
(corresponding to the multiple possible treatment contrasts and for different
subpopulations). And third, the analyst is faced with a wider range of strategies for
estimating treatment effects from a multiple rating score regression discontinuity. The
choice among these different strategies has important implications for precision, bias,
and generalizability.
In particular, multivariate regression discontinuity design provides multiple

possible estimands (Parameters of interest) and multiple estimation strategies. In
application they are several methods proposed for estimation regression discontinuity
design with multiple assignment variables and it is very important to assess those
methods in terms of precision of estimands and bias. In this case we realized that there
no study proving which estimation method is robust for estimating regression
discontinuity design with multiple assignment variables, except a paper by Wong,
Vivian C., Peter M. Steiner, and Thomas D. Cook. (2013). They studied the
performance of four different estimation approaches with only two assignment
variables and they found that the frontier, centering and univariate approaches
produced similar performances in a Monte Carlo simulation study. However,
instrumental variable approach yields biased estimates when its analytic assumptions
are met and also has reduced statistical precision as compared to the other three
methods. So Wong et al. (2013) therefore recommend not to use it in application
because it shows a weak performance compared to frontier, centering and univariate
approaches. Generally, with two assignment variables, estimating MRDD using

INTRODUCTION
frontier, centering and univariate approaches produced unbiased treatment effects

when their design analytical assumptions are met, proven by Wong et al. (2013).
Despite considerable recent works on the statistical underpinnings and
practical estimation of regression discontinuity using a single rating score (see the
special issue of Journal of Econometrics, 2008), the current literature lacks a thorough
examination of issues concerning the study of program effects when multiple cutoff
scores are used to determine eligibility or participation. For instance, while frontier,
centering and univariate approaches have been shown to produce unbiased treatment
effects in two dimensional space provided that their design and analytical assumptions
are met. Though, no with regard to the performance of the three methods in high
dimensional space. In fact, in centering approach, the discontinuity is estimated
without using the frontier defined in high dimension but rather collapsing the frontier
in one point (Wong et al. 2013). This dimension reduction may affect the estimation
process and lead to bias; and the higher the dimension, the higher the effect could be.
In addition, because the dimension reduction is based on minima identification, this
method may be highly affected by the presence of outliers which are often present in
real data. Unlike centering, univariate approach estimates the discontinuity at the
actual frontier, but considering individuals along specific sub-frontiers. As a result,
univariate approach may be more subjected to sampling error than frontier and
centering approaches.
Additional issue that may affect both centering and univariate approaches is
correlation between assignments variables. Treatment effect in a RDD is subjected to
scales of assignment variables (Wong et al. 2013) and thus to correlations between
assignment variables. In centering approach, the correlation structure of the data is not
taken into account in the dimension reduction process. In the univariate approach, the
presence of correlation affect the conditional distribution of individuals around cutoff
of each assignment variable. Consequently, the number of individuals at a particular
sub-frontier may decrease with the correlation and results in less accurate estimated
effects. On contrary, frontier approach takes into account the correlation structure of
the data and estimates should not be subjected to presence of correlation between
assignment variables. Among others, these three issues deserve further investigation
to guide researchers when dealing with MRDD.

INTRODUCTION
Therefore, this study aims to compare three MRDD estimation approaches in a

Monte Carlo simulation study under three different scenarios. The first scenario was
to show the performance of the three proposed approaches in different dimensional
space of assignment variables (we consider RDD with three set of dimensional space,
with 2, 3 and 4 dimension of the assignment variables). The second scenario was, in
practice data are likely to contain noise or extreme observations. So that, in order to
assess the performance of the proposed approaches in presence of extreme
observations, data with different noise levels (5%, 10% and 25%) were simulated to
measure the performance of the three estimation approaches. The third scenario
examine the effect of correlation among assignment variables on the performance of
the three proposed estimation approaches. Therefore, the performance of the three
estimation approaches under different correlation situations were examined.

INTRODUCTION
1.2 Objectives
The main objectives of this study were to compare the relative performance of
three different MRDD estimation methods under different scenarios.
Specific objectives of the study were:
To assess the performance of MRDD estimation methods when the

number of assignment variables increase
To evaluate the performance of frontier, centering and univariate
approaches in the presence of extreme observations.
To measure the influence of correlation between assignment variables
on the performance of the three proposed estimation approaches.
1.3 Research Questions

The research questions addressed in this study were:
1. What is the effect of high dimensionality of the assignment variables on

estimation of MRDD treatment effect using the three proposed approaches?
2. What is the robustness of the three considered MRDD approaches against
presence of noise/extreme observations?
3. What is the influence of significant correlation among assignment variables on
the estimation of treatment effect using the three proposed approaches?
1.4 Research Hypotheses

1. Estimates from univariate and centering approaches are biased as the
number of assignment variables increases.(with more than two assignments)
2. Univariate and frontier approaches are more outlier robust than
centering approach.
3. Univariate and centering approaches are sensitive to correlation
between assignment variables.
.

PRINCIPLES OF REGRESSION DISCONTINUITY DESIGN
2 PRINCIPLES OF REGRESSION DISCONTINUITY

DESIGN
Regression discontinuity design (RDD) is an impact evaluation method that
can be used for evaluating programs that have a continuous eligibility index with a
clearly dened cutoff score to determine who is eligible and who is not. To apply a
regression discontinuity design, two main conditions are needed:
1) A continuous eligibility index, in other words, a continuous measure on which
the population of interest can be ranked, such as a poverty index, a test score,
or age.
2) A clearly dened cutoff score, that is, a point on the index above or below
which the population is classied as eligible for the program. For example,
households with a poverty index score less than 50 out of 100 might be
classied as poor, individuals age 67 and older might be classied as
pensioners, and students with a test score of 90 or more out of 100 might be
eligible for a scholarship. The cutoff scores in these examples are 50, 67, and
90, respectively.
Therefore, RDD is a popular quasi-experimental design used to evaluate

program effect. It differs from the randomized control trial (RTC) mainly in the
assignment of study subjects. In RTC, subjects are assigned to the treatment group(s)
and control group randomly. Any detected effect can be attributed to the program
because any confounding effects are nullified by the random assignment. However, in
RDD, this assignment principle is deliberately violated by assigning subjects to the
treatment by a non-randomized assignment rule. In many education and social
intervention programs it is thought efficacious and ethical to offer the treatment to
individuals based on a measure such as need or worthiness. This entails assigning
subject to the treatment group if they are above (or below) some cutoff score. This
method finds its application in several areas and situations from which we address
some motivated examples below.
Example 1: In a study of remedial writing course for college students, students were
assigned to a remedial writing course when their SAT (scholastic aptitude test) or
ACT (American college test) scores were below a certain cutoff point (Aiken et al.
1998). Example 2: The reading first impact study, schools from each participating
district were selected for a reading intervention if they were above or below a cutoff

on a rating of their need for and for and/or ability to benefit from the intervention
(Bloom, 2009)
Example 3: When estimating the effect of differences in cigarette taxes on smoking

behavior using distance from a state line as the assignment variable, the analysis may
be confounded by other aspects of the state policy environment.
Obviously, RTC is not feasible for these examples because assignment of

subjects is not random. However, the assignment is based on a selection variable with
a cut score. Employing RDD, one tries to use this feature in evaluating program effect
by assuming that the outcome variable is a continuous function of the assignment
score before the treatment is applied. If the treatment has an effect on the outcome
variable, then there will be a jump or drop (i.e., discontinuity) in the regression line at
the cutoff point. An estimated size of this discontinuity is used as an estimated of the
program effect.
2.1 Regression Discontinuity Design with a Single Assignment

Variable
Under the standard Rubin Causal Model, the causal treatment effect is
estimated for a binary treatment intervention D where D 0 if unit belongs to the
i
control condition and D 1 if it belongs to the treatment condition. Let Y (0) and
i i
Y (1) denotes the pair of potential outcomes with Y (0) as the potential control
i i
outcome which is observed if unit is not exposed to treatment ( D 0) and Y (1) the
i i
potential treatment outcome which is observed if unit is exposed to treatment
( D 1) . In practice, both potential outcomes for each unit are not observed (the
i
fundamental problem of causal inference, Holland, 1986). Rather, we observe only
the potential treatment or control outcome for each unit depending on the treatment
received. Hence, the observed outcome can be written as a function of the potential
outcomes.
Y (1 D ).Y (0) D .Y (1)

i i i i i

In a traditional RDD, units are assigned to treatment solely on the basis of a

cutoff score ( Z ) on a continuous assignment variable ( Z ) . The assignment variable
c
is any measure taken prior to the treatment intervention. Let us assume that a unit gets
assigned to the treatment condition if it scores below the cutoff of the assignment
variable and to the control condition if its score is equal to or above the assignment
variable: D 1 if Z z and D 0 if Z z when the assignment rule is perfectly
i i c i i c
implemented, the probability of receiving treatment drops at the cutoff from 1 to 0.
More formally, the discontinuity in the probability of treatment receiving at the cutoff
is lim E[ D | Z z ]- lim E[ D | Z z ] 1 Such a RD design is called sharp
zz i i zz i i
c c
as opposed to a fuzzy regression discontinuity (FRD) design (Trochim,1984) where
due to noncompliance, the probability of treatment receiving does not switch from 1
to 0 at the cutoff, but exhibitsa jump less than 1:
0 lim E[ D | Z z ] lim E[ D | Z z ] 1. The jump needs to be strictly
zz i i zz i i
c c
positive because a valid RDD requires the treatment probability to be discontinuous at
the cutoff (Hahn, Todd, & van der Klaauw, 2001). In a sharp RDD, the causal
quantity of interest is the difference in the potential out comes at the cutoff, that is,
E[Y (1) Y (0) | Z z ]

SRD i i i c
E[Y (1) | Z z ] E[Y (0) | Z z ] E[Y (0) | Z z ]
i i C i i i i i c
Since we never observe control and treatment cases at the cutoff, the causal
estimands is better defined in terms of the difference in limits of conditional
expectations as we approach the cutoff from below and above:
lim E[Y (1) | Z z ] lim E[Y (0) | Z z ]

SRD zz i i zz i i
c c
lim E[Y | Z z ] lim E[Y | Z z ] [1]
zz i i zz i i
c c
The second equality is with observed instead of potential outcomes. This holds
because we observe only the potential treatment outcomes below the cutoff, and only
the potential control outcomes above or at the cutoff. The difference in limits

represents the discontinuity (treatment effect) at the cutoff. However, for to be

SRD
interpreted as a causal effect the potential outcome must be continuous at the cutoff
(Hahn, Todd, & van der Klaauw, 2001; Imbens & Lemieux, 2007; Lee & Lemieux,
2009):
lim E[Y (0) | Z z ] lim E[Y (0) | Z z ]

zz i i zz i i
c c
lim E[Y (1) | Z z ] lim E[Y (1) | Z z ]
zz i i zz i i
c c
2.2 Regression Discontinuity Design with Multiple Assignment

Variables
The logic of using regression discontinuity to estimate treatment effects when
treatments are assigned on the basis of two (or more) rating variables is similar to that
of the single rating score RD. For simplicity, discussion and examples will be
restricted to the case when treatment is assigned on the basis of two rating scores,
though the issues are the same with any number of rating scores. Two concrete
examples will help to illustrate the concept of regression discontinuity deign with
multiple rating score.
Example 1: Consider a case where students are assigned to remedial or summer
coursework on the basis of their scores on two tests, one in mathematics and one in
English language arts (ELA) examples of such policies include the summer school
program described by Jacob and Lefgren (2004), or the assignment to remedial
coursework on the basis of a students performance on a high school exit exam in 10
grade as described by Reardon et al. (2012). In this case, students who score below a
given cutoff score on the math test are assigned to remedial coursework or summer
school in math; students who score below a given cutoff score on the ELA test are
assigned to remedial coursework in ELA. This results in four possible treatment
conditions: no remedial courses; remedial math courses; remedial ELA courses; and
remedial courses in both math and ELA.
Example 2: consider a case where students are assigned to receive special services
designed for English learner (EL) students unless they demonstrate adequate mastery
of both academic and conversational English, in which case they are designated as
fluent English proficient students and receive a standard curriculum and instruction
(see Robinson et al. 2009, under review, for a discussion of such a policy in

California). In this case, students who score below the passing cutoff score on either
the test of academic English or the test of conversational English receive EL services;
students who score above the cutoff score on both receive standard instructional
services. In this case, although there are two rating scores used to determine treatment
assignment, there are only two distinct treatment conditions. In case of two
assignment variables, we partition the treatment space into three subspaces, we
assume that all cases receive exactly the same treatment (otherwise, more than one
potential treatment outcome needs to be considered). Although this is a fairly specific
implementation of a MRDD, the results presented here may also apply to MRDDs
where treatment and control conditions are swapped. The cutoff frontier is defined as
F {(r , m, p, q) : (r r , m m , p p , q q ) (r r , m m , p p , q q )
c c c c c c c c
(r r , m m , p p , q q ) (r r , m m , p p , q q )}
c c c c c c c c
At which the average treatment effect is estimated. Assuming complete treatment
compliance, the average treatment effect at the cutoff frontier is given by
E[Y (1) Y (0) | ( R , M , P , Q ) F ] [2]

MRPQD i i i i i i
Decomposition of the average treatment effect . Since the cutoff

MRPQD
frontier consists of the Q -frontier along assignment variable R, M and P , P -frontier
along assignment variable R , M and Q , M -frontier along assignment variable R, P
and Q then R -frontier along assignment variable M , P and Q . We can decompose
the treatment effect into a weighted average of the treatment effects at R, M , P and
Q frontiers. Let the difference in potential outcomes be G Y (1) Y (0) and the joint
i i i
density function for assignment variables at R, M , P and Q be f (r , m, p, q) then, we
can define the average treatment effect at the cutoff frontier F as the weighted average
of conditional expiations given the single frontiers F , F , F and F .
r m p q
E[G | ( R , M , P , Q ) F ]
RMPQD i| i i i i
w E[G | R F ] w E[G | M F ] w E[G | P F ] w E[G | Q F ]

R i i R M i i M P i i P Q i i Q
w w w w [3]
R R M M P P Q Q
Where weights w , w , w and w reflects the probability for observing a unit at
R M P Q

the single frontiers F , F , F and F conditional expectations represent the average

r m p q
treatment effects , , and at respective discontinuity sub-frontiers. The
R M P Q
general formula to compute weights and specific treatment effects may be given as:
A f (a j |a j c j )da
j j
W [4]
A
j k 1 Ak f (ak |a k ck )da
d
k
A g (a j |A j c j ) f (a j |a j c j )d a
j j
[5]
A
j A f (a j |a j c j )da
j j
where A denotes the k th assignment variable whose singular values are denoted
k
a ; and the cut point c ; A denotes the hyper-plan defined by all assignment
k k -k
variables restricted to values greater than their respective cut points; except a ; A
k -k
a -k denotes a singular point in A ; f (a |a c ) is the joint density function of all
-k j j j
assignment variables with the j th assignment variable fixed to c ; and
j
g (a |a c ) denotes the difference in potential outcome function with the j th

j j j
assignment variable fixed to c . For example, in our working context with four
j
assignment variables, the weight W and the specific treatment effect of the
R R
variable R are accordingly given by:
m m p p q q f r rc ,.m, p, q dmdpdq
c c c

W
R Dw
Where D defined as (whatever the assignment variable):

w
c c c
c c

D m m p p q q f r r ,.m, p, q dmdpdq r r p p q q
w c c
c c c c c
f r ,.m m , p, q drdpdq r r m m q q f R,.m, p p , q drdmdq
c c c

r r m m p p f R,.m, p, q qc drdmdp

c c c

m m p p q q g (r , m, p, q) f r rc , m, p, q dmdpdq
E[G | R F ]
R i i R

m m p p q q f r rc , m, p, q dmdpdq
c c c

2.3 Assumptions Required for MRDD
Given that the frontier average treatment effect may be decomposed into a
weighted average of frontier-specific effects, all required assumptions for the
traditional univariate RDD must be met for each discontinuity frontier (at all frontier)
for all design has two requirements: First, there must be a discontinuity in the
treatment probabilities at all frontier . Second, the expectations of potential outcomes
must be continuous at all frontier not necessarily along frontier F. With both single
and multiple rating score RD designs, it is assumed that the cutoff score(s)
determining treatment assignment is/are exogenously set; potential outcomes are
continuous functions of the rating score(s) at the cutoff score(s); and the functional
form of the model is correctly specified. Imbens and Lemieux (2012) provide a
detailed description of assumption checking in the single rating score RD context.
Discussion is built to extend these checks to the case of MRDD. In particular,

we suggest assessing the assumptions as they apply to each separate frontier at which
there is a treatment assignment discontinuity, regardless of which of the analytic
methods are used to estimate the treatment effects. This enables the researcher to
verify the Plausibility of the assumptions at each treatment assignment threshold.
In order to assess the plausibility of the assumption that the cutoff scores are
exogenously determined, McCrary (2008) suggests (for the single rating score RD)
checking that the density of observations be similar on either side of the cutoff score.
In the MRDD design, it is useful to compare the density of observations near each of
the cutoff scores. For example, if there are two rating scores and four distinct
treatment conditions (as shown in Figure 1), this entails four Separate comparisons
A| B
(one comparing the density of observations on either side of frontier R , one
comparing the density on either side of frontier R B|C and so on). In general, if there
J 1
are J assignment and 2 J treatment condition, this will entails J * 2 separate
compassions. Evidence of discontinuity in the density of observations across any of

the frontiers suggests the possibility of manipulation of the rating scores and thus, a
failure of the erogeneity assumption.
To assess the plausibility of the second assumption continuity of potential

outcomes we may examine the continuity of observable (pre-treatment) variables
presumed to be related to the potential outcomes. In practice, this is done by checking
that each such variable exhibits no discontinuity at each of the J *2 J 1 frontiers.

We check this by fitting a set of frontier regression discontinuity models, each with a
covariate X as the dependent variable, and testing the null hypothesis that
lim E[ X | R r ] lim E[ X | R r ] for each X at each frontier. It may

r 0 r 0
_
be useful to include the other rating scores in the set of covariates X , as they should
not vary sharply at any frontier.
The third assumption is that the functional form of the model is correctly
specified. As Imbens and Lemieux (2008) point out, this is best done through visual
inspection of a plot of the Relationship between the outcome variable and the rating
score. For each of the methods that Reduce the multivariate rating score space to a
single rating score dimension (i.e., each of the methods except for the response
surface RD method), this can be done straightforwardly with the methods described
by Imbens and Lemieux (2008). When using the response surface RD approach,
however, identifying the correct functional form in a multivariate space through
graphical analysis can be difficult. In this case, we propose a visual inspection
technique for assessing the appropriateness of the functional form of the surface RD
model.

Figure 1: Discontinuity with 2 rating score variables
Note that if the functional form of the model is correct, the residuals should have an
expected value of 0 at each point in the multivariate rating score space. We check this
as follows. First, given a fitted surface RD model, predict the residuals. For each
A| B
frontier where there is a treatment condition discontinuity, (e.g., R in Figure 1),
consider the sample of observations that are in the adjacent regions of the rating score
space (e.g., regions A and B in Figure 1). Next, using this sample, construct a plot of
the residuals from the surface RD model against the single rating score that
determines treatment assignment at that frontier (e.g. R1 if we are examining the
A| B
frontier at R ) If the functional form of the model is correct, the residuals should
have a mean value of 0 at each value of the rating score. Most importantly, the
residuals should have a mean value of 0 as they approach the cutoff score from both
the left and the right. This can be checked by fitting separate nonparametric smoothed
curves through the data on either side of the cutoff score or by plotting the mean value
of the residual within small bins across the range of the rating score. We construct
these plots for each of the frontiers in order to assess the model fit over the entire
region of the sample. Deviation of the mean value of the residual from 0 particularly
at the cutoff score suggests the response surface RD model is not fit correctly in this
region of the data. Ideally, there should be no noticeable deviation from average
residuals of zero throughout the domain, though the most crucial region for no

deviation is around any cutoff score at which there is a treatment discontinuity. The
assumptions for traditional regression discontinuity design summarized in table 1.
RD factor Criteria
Cutoff Criterion must be followed without exception
Pre-post distribution must not be better explained with a curve
variances are the same across must have sufficient number of values
values of pretest
Continuous pretest distribution both groups (treatment and control) came
from same distribution
Equal treatment treatment administered in same way for all
participants
Table 1: Assumptions of regression discontinuity design
2.4 Estimation Strategies for Multivariate Regression Discontinuity

Design
Conceptually, the analytic strategy of single or multiple rating score regression
discontinuity is straightforward: we use the observed data to estimate the limits of the
average potential outcomes functions at the boundary of two treatment assignment
regions, and then take the difference of these estimated limits. The challenge lies in
the fact that these limits must be estimated at the boundary of the observed data for
each treatment condition; this requires fitting a regression model. As we discuss
below, all sharp regression discontinuity estimators are based on fitting regression
models of the following form to the observed data, where there are J assignment
variables and k distinct treatment condition:
y f ( R1, R2 ,.....R J ) k T k X B
i i i i k i i i
Where {R1, R2 ,.....R J } D R Hence, R1, R2 ,.....R J are the J rating scores used to
i i i i i i
determine treatment status, and T i the Binary variables indicating if individual is

k
assigned to treatment with in this general form, the estimators differ in two important
ways: 1) the specification of the function; and 2) the domain (D) of observations used

in estimating the model. The inclusion of a vector X pre-treatment covariates in the

i
model may increase the precision of the estimates, but is generally unnecessary, as the
model is well-identified without it (Imbens & Lemieux, 2008).
The choice of functional form of f used to model the average potential

outcome surface may be consequential, particularly when data are relatively sparse in
the region near the boundary. The ideal situation would be an ample supply of data
near a boundary. In this case, we might use only those observations arbitrarily close to
either side of the boundary for estimation of the limits, a strategy that minimizes the
necessity of making strong assumptions about the functional form of f . Under the
continuity assumption, cases on either side of a boundary will become arbitrarily
similar to one another, on average, save for their treatment status, as we narrow the
distance from the boundary. In the extreme, if we limit our analyses only to cases
arbitrarily close to the boundary, we can analyze the data as if they were produced by
a tie-breaking experiment. In the absence of very large amounts of data, however,
restricting analyses to points very near to the cutoff score results in imprecise
estimates of the limits, necessitating the use of data further from the cutoff score and
assumptions about the functional form of the Average potential outcome surfaces.
Ideally, we would like estimates that are both unbiased and precise, but these goals
are somewhat at odds with one another: we can gain precision by including
observations further from the boundary and an assumed functional form to estimate
the limits of the average potential outcomes functions, but doing so increases the
potential bias in the estimated limits. We can reduce potential bias by narrowing the
bandwidth, but generally at the cost of precision.
In case of MRDD with four assignment variables allows the estimation of five
different causal quantities: four frontier-specific effects ( , , and ) the
R M P Q
overall effect. . In this study, we present the following three estimation

RMPQD
Approaches: the frontier, centering and univariate approaches. All approaches aim at
estimating frontier-specific effects , , , and the overall treatment effect
R M P Q
.
RMPQD

2.4.1 Frontier Approach
This procedure estimates the discontinuity along all frontiers simultaneously,

and applies appropriate weights to obtain the overall effect .It first
RMPQD
estimates the discontinuous response surface y (r, m, p, q) using a parametric, semi-
parametric or nonparametric regression method. Since we are interested only in the
treatment effect at the cutoff frontier F , the treatment function y (r , m, p, q | F ) is
estimated by taking the Difference in the estimated treatment outcome y and the
1
control outcome y along F such that
0
r , m, p, q | F ) y (r , m, p, q | F ) y (r , m, p, q | F ) .Then, the joint density function
g(
1 0
r , m, p, q) is estimated by using kernel-density estimator. Finally, we plug
f(
r , m, p, q) into equations (4) and (5) and estimate , ,
g (r , m, p, q | F ) and f(
R M P
and , as well as weights w , w , w and w (for estimating ), by
Q R M P Q RMPQD
numerical integration.
The algorism of frontier approach is presented in the following steps:
Step 1. Estimate the treatment function, which is the average size of the
discontinuity along the cutoff frontiers using parametric, semi-
parametric, or non-parametric approaches.
Step 2. Estimate the joint density function by using a kernel density estimator
or by estimating conditional density functions for each frontier
separately for observations that lie within a narrow bandwidth around
the frontier.
Step 3. Numerically integrate the product of treatment and joint density

functions at the cutoff frontiers to obtain conditional expectations
across both frontiers.
Step 4. Third, apply appropriate treatment weights to each discontinuity

frontier.
Step 5. Estimates the overall effect and the specific effect.

2.4.2 Centering Approach
This procedure collapses multiple assignment scores into a single assignment

variable, thereby reducing a high-dimensional assignment mechanism to a one
dimensional mechanism. This is achieved by the following procedure: For each
assignment variable, center each units score at its respective cutoff, such that
R z R r , M z M m , P z P p and Q z Q q .Then, choose the

i c i i c i i c i i c
minimum value applies only in MRD designs. Z min( X C ) , Where X matrix
i k ki k
is contains all assignment variables and C is a vector contains cut points for each
assignment. For example, when we have 4 assignments variables RMPQ :
Z min( R r , M m , P p , Q q )
i c i c i c i c
Finally, apply standard RD analytic methods (e.g. local polynomial Regression) for
estimating treatment effects by using Z as the assignment variable and Zero as the
cutoff. The main advantage of the centering approach is that it allows the researcher
to Collapse scores from multiple assignment rules to a single assignment variable.
The approach also generalizes well to MRDDs with more than two assignment
variables, as Well as simplifies the analyses for estimating average treatment effects
across multiple discontinuity frontiers. However, it does not allow the estimation of
frontier-specific effects but that can be done by using whether frontier or univariate
approaches. The algorism of centering approach is presented in the following steps:
Step 1. For each unit i , center all assignment variables by their respective
cutoffs, that is ( X C ) where X matrix is contains all assignment variable
1i i
and C is a vector contains cut points for each assignment variables.
Step 2. Choose the minimum centered value Z min( X C ) , then chosen

i k ki k
Z as the units sole assignment score.

Step 3. Pool units and analyze as a standard RD design with Z as the single
assignment variable.
Step 4. Estimates only the oveall effect.

2.4.3 Univariate Approach
This approach solves the dimensionality problem by estimating treatment

effects for each frontier separately. We estimate the treatment effect at the -frontier
F by excluding all observations scoring on assignment variable M , P and Q below
R
the cutoff M , P and Q since the cutoff frontier F is defined only on
c c c R
M m , P p and Q q . Then using standard RDD method like polynomial
c c c
(Imbens & Lemieux, 2008), we estimate the treatment effect at F According to
R
equation (1). We estimate the treatment effect at the cutoff frontier F , F and F
M P Q
in a similar way, except that we exclude all observations scoring below the cutoff on
the remaining assignment variables. In addition, the average treatment effect
were estimated, by using appropriate treatment weights for each frontier as
RMPQD
described in frontier approach. The algorism of univariate approach is presented in the
following steps:
Step 1. Choose the first assignment variable and exclude all observations
values less than all cut point of assignment variables except the first
assignment variable so that the first assignment variable defined only
values greater than all cut point of assignment variables. Using the first
then analyze as a standard RD design with as the single assignment
variable. Example: if we have two assignment variable RM with rc and
mc cut point then exclude all observations with r values less than its
respective cutoff (r ), and choosing a single assignment variable (say, m) and

c
cutoff (m ).
c
Step 2. Estimate treatment effects by measuring size of discontinuity of the

conditional outcomes at the cutoff for the designated assignment variable
using parametric, semi-parametric, or non-parametric approaches
Step 3. Estimates specific effect and the overall effect. To compute the overall effect,
take a weight of each assignment variables from frontier approach and
multiply each specific effect by its weight then add together to get the
overall effect.

ANALYTIC APPROACHES
Frontier Centering Univariate
First, model the response Center all assignment variables at Choose a single assignment
surface using a parametric, their respective cutoffs and assign variable and cutoff, excluding
semi-, or nonparametric each unit their minimum all observations that are
method, and then use kernel (or maximum) centered assigned to treatment via the
density estimates for assignment score. Use the other assignment variables and
integrating the treatment minimum assignment scores as the cutoffs. Analyze with
effects along the cutoff sole assignment variable and traditional univariate RDD methods.
Procedure
frontiers. analyze as a traditional univariate

RDD.
Frontier ATE ( overall effect) Only frontier ATE (overall effect ) Frontier ATE (overall effect) and
and frontier-specific ATEs frontier-specific ATEs
Estimands
1. Discontinuity in treatment 1. Discontinuity in treatment 1. Discontinuity in treatment

probabilities at each cutoff probabilities at each cutoff probability at the cutoff
frontier. frontier. frontier under investigation.
2. Continuity of potential 2. Continuity of potential 2. Continuity of potential
outcomes at each cutoff outcomes at each cutoff frontier. outcomes at the cutoff frontier
frontier. 3. For a meaningful interpretation, under investigation.
Requirements
3. Estimating the overall effect assignment variables need to be on

requires that the assignment the same metric in the same
variables are on the same content area.
Design
content and
metric.
Correct modeling of the entire Correct modeling of the Correct modeling of the
response surface. bivariate outcome regression. bivariate outcome regression.
Nonparametric methods Nonparametric methods require an Nonparametric methods require an
require an optimal bandwidth optimal bandwidth choice and an optimal bandwidth choice and an
Requirements
choice and an appropriate appropriate degree of local appropriate degree of local

degree of local polynomials. polynomials. polynomials.
Kernel densities need to be
Analytic
reliably estimated using

appropriate kernels and
bandwidths.
Estimates all effects Handles MRDDs with many Straight-forward to compute
(the overall and specific) assignment variables with relative and detects heterogeneous
simultaneously and, thus, is ease. treatment effects. Higher efficiency
able to detect heterogeneous (smaller standard errors.
Advantages
treatment effects. Higher

efficiency (smaller standard
errors) than centering
approach.
Relies on the strong Obscures heterogeneous It depends on frontier approaches to

assumption that the response treatment effects when they are compute the overall effect because it
surface and kernel density are present. More complex functional take weight from frontier each
correctly estimated. form assignment variable to compute the
Nonparametric estimation of of the centered assignment overall effect.
Disadvantages
densities and numerical variable-outcome relationship,

integration is cumbersome and making treatment estimates
computationally expensive prone to bias.
(particularly if standard errors Less efficient than frontier
are bootstrapped). approach.
Table 2: Summary of analytic approaches for analyzing sharp multivariate RDD

2.5 Regression Discontinuity Designs in Practice

In this section, we use a real data from the Initiative Nationale du
Development Humaine, collected as the part of the SNSF project "Development Aid
and Social Dynamics". In particular, it focuses on a national community-driven
development (CDD) program in Morocco (INDH being its French acronym), in which
the local populations at the commune level decide on how to use the block grant they
receive to address the development needs of the community (e.g. building a school or
improving local water services).This project builds on the household survey data
already collected in 2008 and 2011 for the impact evaluation of the INDH program in
collaboration with the Moroccan government. Data can download from R software,
rddtools package under the name indh.
The indh object is a data.frame containing 720 observations (representing

individuals) of two variables: y=choice_pg and x= poverty.The variable of interest is
choice_pg, which represent the decision to contibute to a public good or not. The
observations are individuals choosing to contribute or not, these individuals are
clustered by the variable poverty which is the municiple structure at which funding
was distributed as part of the INDH project. The forcing variable is poverty which
represents the number of households in a commune living below the poverty
threshold. As part of the INDH, commune with a proportion of household below the
poverty threshhold greater than 30% were allowed to distribute the funding using a
Community Driven Development scheme. The cutoff point for our analysis is
therefore 30. We start by loading the package. load the rddtools library
>library(rddtools)
We can now load the included data set
>data(indh)
We can now transform the data.frame to a special rdd_data data.frame using the
rdd_data() function.
>rdd_dat_indh<-rdd_data(y=choice_pg,x=poverty,data=indh,
cutpoint=30)
In order to best understand our data, we start with an exploratory data analysis using
table using a function summary ()
>summary(rdd_dat_indh)
### rdd_data object ###

Cutpoint: 30
Sample size:
-Full : 720
-Left : 362
-Right: 358
Covariates: no
The summary statistrcies shows all description of our dataset. The total number=720.
From the 720 individuals, 362 assigned to treatment group and 358 assigned to
Control group based on the cut point.
Plot the house_rdd dataset, whether to return a plot. Logical, default ot TRUE
>plot(rdd_dat_indh)
1.0
0.8
object$y
0.6
0.4
0.2
28.0 28.5 29.0 29.5 30.0 30.5 31.0
object$x
h=0.0485,\tn bins=39
Figure 2: Graphical visualization of treatment and control group
Treatment effect estimated using parametric regression Treatment effect from

Regression discontinuity design can perform using parametric, non-parametric and
semi-parametric. Lets first analyze the indh dataset using parametric regression. The
rddtools provides a function to compute RD treatment effect using parametric and
non-parametric. For parametic model, we use the function rdd_reg_lm() to estimate
parametrically, we choose the order of polynomial which fits well to the data. In this
case, we choose order 4 or 4th order polynomial in our model for indh dataset.
>reg_para <- rdd_reg_lm(rdd_object=rdd_dat_indh, order=4)

>reg_para
### RDD regression: parametric ###
Polynomial order: 4
Slopes: separate
Number of obs: 720 (left: 362, right: 358)
Coefficient:
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
D 0.22547 0.17696 1.2741 0.203
# plot the regression model

>plot(reg_para)
The analysis is done using the all observation in both sides. The data is fitted with
polynomial model. The order is chosen because we test all orders 1-4, order 4 is the
best model. The coefficient linked to D which is 0.225 is the estimated effect from the
RD model and the p-value is greater than 0.05 which is significant but does not mean
the finial RD estimate. Because, RDD uses to analysis the treatment effect individuals
near to the cut point. The total number observation in indh dataset is 720 which is too
small for rd analysis so its better to use non parametric approach in the case sample
size is small.
1.0
0.8
dat$y
0.6
0.4
0.2
28.0 28.5 29.0 29.5 30.0 30.5 31.0
dat$x
h=0.05,\tn bins=41
Figure 3: LATE estimation for indh dataset using parametric regression
In addition to the parametric estimation, we can also perform a non-parametric

estimation. Run a simple local regression, using the [Imbens and Kalyanaraman 2012]
bandwidth. rdd_bw_ik a function that determine Imbens-Kalyanaraman optimal
bandwidth for #local linear regression in Regression discontinuity designs.

>bw_ik <- rdd_bw_ik(rdd_dat_indh)

>reg_nonpara <- rdd_reg_np(rdd_object=rdd_dat_indh,
bw=bw_ik)
>print(reg_nonpara)
### RDD regression: nonparametric local linear###
Bandwidth: 0.790526
Number of obs: 460 (left: 139, right: 321)
Coefficient:
Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|)
D 0.144775 0.095606 1.5143 0.13
Using the function rdd_bw_ik(), we estimate the bandwidth for the non-parametric
model for our analysis so the Bandwidth is 0.79, for rdd analysis, we use individuals
only
Inside the bandwidth then we estimated the potential outcome of the two treatment
conditions.and visualizing the non-parametric estimation. The local average treatment
effect is the RDD parameter of interest. Therefore, estimated 0.144, which was a
positive impact but not significant at alpha level 0.05. So the giving grant to local
population under SNSF project no impact on addressing development needs to the
building a school or improving local water services.
>plot(x=reg_nonpara)
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
dat$y
0.5
0.4
0.3
28.0 28.5 29.0 29.5 30.0 30.5 31.0
dat$x
h=0.1581,\tn bins=18
Figure 4: LATE estimation for indh dataset using non- parametric regression

Regression Sensitivity tests: One can easily check the sensitivity of the estimate to
different bandwidths.
>plotSensi(reg_nonpara, from=0.05, to=1, by=0.1)
0.5
LATE
0.0
-0.5
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75

bw
Figure 5: Sensitivity of the estimate to different bandwidths
Sensitivity of the estimate to different bandwidths. The graph shows that the
estimated local average treatment effect is less sensitive to bandwidth.

MATERIAL AND METHODS
3 MATERIAL AND METHODS

3.1 Simulation Design for Monte Carlo Comparison of Approaches
In this section, we conducted an extensive simulation study based closely on
paper by Wong et al. (2013). The objective of the simulations study were to evaluate
the relative performance of the three MRDD estimation approaches. In a series of
simulation studies, we examined the performance of frontier, centering and univariate
approaches when we vary the following three factors:
When the dimensional space of the assignment variables increase. We defined

three set of assignment variables,(RD=2,3 and 4 assignment variables)
When RDD data contains noise (extreme observations) at different level and
we defined three proportions of the noise level (0.05, 0.1 and 0.25).
When different correlation scenarios are present among assignment variables.
We defined four different correlation scenarios among assignment variables
such as (r=0,0.3,0.5,0.7)
3.2 Model Specification and Data Generation with 2-4 Assignment

Variables
Populations of size N =5000 were simulated according to the models specified
below. We defined three set of assignment variables such as (with 2 assignment
variables RM , with 3 assignment variables RMP , with 4 assignment variable RMPQ ) and
each assignment variables was generated from the multivariate normal distribution.
The outcome for unit is a generated based on two different specifications of the
true response surface using the given assignment variables below. We simulated data
for each assignment variables and error term as Models specified below. The outcome
Y is generated according to the model specified for different number of assignment
variables. The outcome for unit is a simulated based on two different
specifications of the true response surface using two assignment variables.
Model 1: Y T R M
i i 1 i 2 i i
Model 2: Y T R M R M
i i 1 i 2 i 3 i i i

The outcome for unit is a simulated based on two different specifications of the
true response surface using three Assignment variables.
Model 3: Y T R M P
i i 1 i 2 i 3 i i
Model 4: Y T R M P R M R P M P
i i 1 i 2 i 3 i 4 i i 5 i i 6 i i i
The outcome for unit is a simulated based on two different specifications of the
true response surface using four Assignment variables.
Model 5: Y T R M P Q
i i 1 i 2 i 3 i 4 i i
Model 6: Y T R M P Q R M R P
i i 1 i 2 i 3 i 4 i 5 i i 6 i i
R Q M P M Q PQ
7 i i 8 i i 9 i i 10 i i i
Where R , M , P & Q the assignment variables, drawn from a multivariate

i i i i
normal distribution with correlation 0.2 among all assignment variables. The vector
liked to the assignment variables ( , , ) used in the simulation study were specified
as: 1 , 8 and the vector ( , ,... ) has defined as an identity column.

1 2 10
These values were chosen arbitrary. However, the coefficient linked with treatment T
which is were defined arbitrarily and served as a true coefficient for the treatment
variable T and we set the arbitrary number (coefficient) for treatment T as 8.
Therefore, the true effect for treatment T is 8. So that, the true effect serves as our
benchmark for comparing the estimates produced by the three approaches. The
remaining simulation works conducted in this study were based on last simulation
studies by Wong et al. (2013). T equals 1 if unit i receives any treatment at all and 0
i
if it did Not, T equals 1 if unit i has an R assignment score less than r but M , P and
c
Q assignment score greater than m , p and q (and 0 if otherwise). T Equals 1 if
c c c
unit i has M assignment score less than m but R , P and Q assignment score
c
greater than r , p and q (0 if otherwise). T equals 1 if unit i has an P assignment
c c c

score less than p but R , M and Q assignment score greater than r , m and q
c c c c
(and 0 if otherwise). T equals 1 if unit i has an Q assignment score less than q but
c
an R , M and P assignment score greater than r , m and p (and 0 if otherwise).
c c c i
is a normally distributed error term with a mean zero and a standard deviation 2.
Model 1, 3 and 5 (model with constant treatment effect) shows a constant treatment
with no treatment by assignment variable interactions and level changes in the
treatment response surface and Model 2, 4 and 6 (heterogeneous treatment effects
model) defines heterogeneous effects based on continuous potential treatment
outcomes. In this model, effects along F , F , F and F are heterogeneous due to
R M P Q
interactions among assignment variables.
Given the above data generating equations and the distribution of assignment
variables, we first computed for each model the true treatment effects for frontiers.
These theoretical effects serve as our benchmarks for comparing the estimates
produced by the three approaches. All assignment variables are normally distributed
with the same standard deviation of 10, but have different means and cutoffs. For R
assignment variable, the mean is 45 and the cutoff is 40. For the M assignment
variable, the mean is 55 and the cutoff is 60. For P assignment variable, the mean is
50 and the cutoff is 45 and for the Q assignment variable, the mean is 50 and the
cutoff is 65.
The goal of the Monte Carlo study with 500 simulated samples of size 5,000 is
to evaluate the unbiasedness of the proposed approaches for estimating the true
treatment effects. Due to computational reasons, we do not directly investigate
variance estimators of the treatment effects (for each approach, standard errors may
be bootstrapped). However, for assessing the relative efficiency of the three
approaches, we report standard errors estimated from our simulation, which is the
standard deviation of estimated treatment effects across the 500 iterations,
2
i 1( i ) where is the average of the estimated effects and i is the
s 500

simulation standard deviation may be considered as an a average standard error
bootstrapped from the overall target population instead of the actual samples). To test
the unbiasedness of an estimated treatment effect with respect to its corresponding

true effect, we use simulation standard errors s / 500 . Significant differences

between estimated treatment effects and true effects (at the .05 error level) are
indicated by asterisks in the tables (simulation standard errors are not presented in the
tables).
3.3 White Noise Imputation in the Data Generation Process

In practice, data are likely to contain noise or extreme observations. Our main
goal was to measure the three approaches to know their extent of robustness in the
presence of noise data. In order to assess the influence of extreme observations on
MRDD estimation approaches. The N=5000 population was generated with three
different noise levels (n=0.05, 0.1 and 0.25) to examine the effect of extreme
observations on the proposed approaches. The extreme observations were simulated
by the fact that any distribution different from the distribution of the assignment
variables is an outlier. To be more reasonable on the distribution of the extreme
observation one can chose a distribution which is quite different from the distribution
of the assignment variable. In our simulation study, all assignment variable were
simulated from a multivariate normal distribution and the extreme observations were
simulated from a uniform distribution with a and b parameters U (a, b) . We defined
parameters a and b as follow:
a min(X ) range(X ) and b max(X ) range(X ) .where X is a design
1i 1i 1i 1i
matrix of the assignment variables The process of adding extreme observation to our
dataset is described as follows, populations of size N=5000 were simulated. In each
population, the design matrix of X=RM was defined from the multivariate Normal
distribution. The algorithm for simulating white noise is presented in the following
steps:
Step 1. Define values for the coefficients , , , (in the case of 2 assignment
1 2
variables, R and M assignment variables);
Step 2. Define the mean and variance for each assignment variables.
Step 3. Generate the assignment variables R and M from the multivariate Normal
distribution with N sample size;
Step 4. Define the error term with mean zero and constant standard deviation.

Step 5. Generate the outcome variable, Yi using a defined model. Example: (model 1
= Y T R M with sample size N)

i i 1 i 2 i i
Step 5. Randomly remove size of n (n=5%, 10%, 25%) from the N sample size.
Step 6. Generate white noise from uniform distribution U (a, b) with parameter a and
b for each assignment variables with size n (n=5%, 10%.25%) and replace them with
the observation have been removed in step 5.
Step 7. Repeat step 6 S times (S=500) and for each Bootstrap sample, then, apply the
following MRDD estimation approaches a) frontier; b) centering; c) univariate
approches. The package rddtools (R software) were used to analysis centering and
univariate approach.
3.4 Correlation Inclusion between Assignment Variables
Correlation is a statistical technique that can show whether and how strongly
pairs of variables are related. The closer r is to +1 or -1, the more closely the two
variables are related. If r is close to 0, it means there is no relationship between the
variables. The square of the coefficient (or r square) is equal to the percent of the
variation in one variable that is related to the variation to the other. We assume that
moderate correlation may not be problematic. However severe multicoillinearity is a
problem because it can increase the variance of the coefficient estimates and make the
estimate very sensitive to minor changes in the model. We assume that in MRDD,
correlation among assignment variables may effect on the estimation treatment effect.
To study the influence of correlation among assignment variables, we consider RDD
with two assignment variables and four correlation scenarios among assignment
variables. For this purpose reason we defined 4 values of r such as, (r=0, 0.2, 0.5, 0.7)
we simulated all assignment variables with different correlation among them (r =0,
0.3, 0.5, 0.7). Our main goal were to compare the three proposed approaches in the
presence of significant correlation among assignment variables.
3.5 Comparison Criteria
As stated above, the benchmarks for assessing our simulation results are true
effects given for each specified model. However, as the reported estimates are
obtained as the average of estimates from 500 simulated data sets generated from each
model, the punctual biases may be hidden by the averaging mechanism. Fortunately,
the presence of such punctual biases may be expressed through the sample variance of

the computed average of estimates. Hence, to assess the relative efficiency of the
three approaches, we report standard errors estimated from our simulation, which is
the standard deviation of estimated treatment effects across the 500 iterations,
2
i 1( i ) where is the average of the estimated effects and i is the
s 500

simulation standard deviation may be considered as an a average standard error
bootstrapped from the overall target population instead of the actual samples). To test
the unbiasedness of an estimated treatment effect with respect to its corresponding
true effect, we use simulation Student t-test with standard errors s / 500 . We use t-

test to determine the unbiasness of estimated effect because our data follows normal
distribution. Significant differences between estimated treatment effects and true
effects (at the .05 error level) are indicated by asterisks in the tables (simulation
standard errors are not presented in the tables).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Results
4.1.1 Effect estimates for MRDDs with different set of assignment variables
The first line of the column panels in Table 3 presents the theoretical treatment
according to the data generating model (see Model 1). The second line shows the true
effects for treatment T is 8.00. The first panel of Table 3 shows the results for two
assignment variables on the same scale with identical distributions. Treatment effects
produced from the three approaches were comparable in terms of relative proportion
to the theoretical effect however theoretical effect produced by frontier, centering and
univariate are almost similar. So, we compared them in term of standard error of the
treatment effect produced to estimate the effect. The frontier approach estimated the
treatment effects between 7.99 and 8.01 at FR and FM frontiers, and 8.00 for the
overall effect. Centering and univariate approach estimated the overall effect 8.01 and
8.00 respectively however the standard error for centering was 10% larger than
univariate approach. In general, all approaches provided unbiased treatment effect.
However, the frontier approach estimated the treatment effect with lower standard
error than centering and univariate approach.
The second panel of Table 3 shows the treatment effect result produced from
the three proposed approaches with three assignment variables on the same scale with
identical distributions (see second panel of Table 3). The frontier approach estimated
the treatment effects of 7.99, 7.89 and 7.99 at FR , FM and FP frontiers and 7.98 for the
overall effect, which is similar a treatment effect with the true effect estimated. The
centering approach estimated the overall effect of 7.82 and 2.94 standard error
produced from the 500 replication in the simulation study. However, there was a
significant difference between the estimated true effect and treatment effect estimated
by centering approach. The univariate approach estimated the treatment effects of
7.66, 8.20 and 8.77 at FR , FM and FP frontiers and 8.13 for the overall effect. The
univariate approach produced unbiased treatment effect because there is a no
significant different between the estimated true effect and estimated effect by
univariate approach. Therefore, the frontier and univariate approaches estimated the
treatment effect similar to the theoretical treatment effect but the same cannot be said
for the centering approach. The third panel of Table 3 shows the results for four
assignment variables on the same scale with identical distributions (see third panel of

Table 3). With four assignment variables. The frontier approach estimated the
treatment effects 8.00, 7.98, 7.99 and 8.00 at FR , FM , FP and FQ frontiers and 7.99 for
the overall effect, which is similar to the true effect estimated. Centering approach
estimated the overall effect 8.00. However, there is significant difference between the
estimated true effect and treatment effect estimated by the centering approach.
Moreover, standard errors produced by centering approach were very large compared
to that of the frontier approach. The univariate approach estimated the treatment
effects of 7.30, 7.79, 9.03 and 7.95 at FR , FM , FP and FQ frontiers and 7.95 of the
overall effect. Besides producing an estimated treatment effect with a very large
standard error (2.82) , there also was a significant different between the estimated true
effect and treatment effect estimated by the univariate approach. In General, the
frontier approach continues estimating unbiased treatment when the number of
assignment variables varies from two to four, while centering and univariate
approaches fails to detect the effect with four assignments variable. As can be seen
from Table 3, standard errors produced from all approaches increases proportionally
with increasing number of assignment variables. By examining these aforementioned
approaches in three differential dimension of assignment rules, we found that the
frontier approach yields the most precise estimates than the centering and univariate
approaches. While, the centering and univariate approaches fails to estimate the effect
with more than two assignment variables.
The first line of the column panels in Table 4 represents the theoretical
treatment according to the data-generating model (see Model 2). The second line
shows the true effects is 8.00. Table 4 shows result for MRDD estimate with different
number of assignment variables for model 2 (data generated by Model 2). First, we
considered MRDD with two assignment variables, Frontier estimated 8.00 and 8.04 at
FR and FM frontiers, and 8.03 for the overall effect with very a small standard error.
As can be seen from panel 1 of Table 4, centering and univariate approaches

estimated the treatment effect different from the true effect and failed to detect the
effect at alpha level of 0.05. This is due the fact that these approaches estimated the
treatment effect using a single metric defined by each approach. In addition, both
approaches do not take in to account the interaction between assignment variables to
estimate the effect because of the single metric they use in their estimations.

When MRDD consists of three assignment variables on the same scale and the same
distribution distributions, frontier approach produced estimations of 7.99, 7.98 and
8.00 for R , M and P frontier respectively with an overall effect estimated of 7.99
and a very small standard error. Centering and univariate approach estimated the
overall effects of 16.38 and 44.1 respectively, both of which are different from the
true values. Therefore with references to Models 1 and 2, centering and univariate
approaches fails to detect effects with three assignment variables whereas the frontier
approach qualified in estimating unbiased treatment effect with a very small standard
error.

Estimated results for MRDD treatment effect
Table 3: MRDD estimates with different number of assignment variables for model 1(constant treatment effect)
method of analysis
Number of Weights & effects wR wM wP wQ R M P Q RMD
assignment
variables.
True effect 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00
Frontier approach 0.30 0.70 7.99 8.01 8.00

(0.01) (0.01) (0.43) (0.61) (0.48)
Centering approach 8.01
2
(0.76)
Univariate approach 8.03 8.00 8.01
(1.07) (0.89) (0.73)
Frontier approach 0.21 0.58 0.21 7.99 7.89 7.99 7.98
(0.01) (0.01) (0.00) (0.13) (0.15) (0.15) (0.11)
Centering approach 7.85*
3
(1.10)
Univariate approach 7.66 8.20 8.77 8.00
(1.90) (0.76) (1.09) (1.05)
Frontier approach 0.08 0.27 0.08 0.56 8.00 7.98 7.99 8.00 7.99
(0.00) (0.01) (0.00) (0.01) (0.43) (0.33) (0.43) (0.32) (0.27)
4
(2.94)
Univariate approach 7.30 7.79 9.03 7.95 8.13*
(7.70) (5.30) (8.02) (3.54) (2.82)
Notes. Weights wR and wM are given in percent (WR WM 100) Standard errors (estimated from the simulation) are in parenthesis. * indicates statistical
difference (p < .05) between estimated and theoretical treatment effects (based on simulation standard errors)

Table 4: MRDD estimates with different number of assignment variables for model 2(with interaction treatment effect)
method of analysis
Number of Weights & effects wR wM wP wQ R M P Q RMD
assignment
variables.
True effect 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00

(0.02) (0.02) (0.79) (1.33) (1.07)
2
(36.22)
(29.80) (43.42) (31.33)
Frontier approach 0.21 0.58 0.21 7.99 7.98 8.00 7.99
(0.01) (0.01) (0.00) (0.13) (0.11) (0.15) (0.10)
3
(62.97)
Univariate approach -22.48 45.15 108.6* 44.1*
(138.98) (77.98) (102.1) (63.48)
Frontier approach 0.08 0.27 0.42 0.32 7.96 7.99 7.98 8.00 7.99
(0.01) (0.01) (0.01) (0.01 (0.42) (0.33) (0.41) (0.32) (0.27)
Centering approach -107.2*
4 (483)
Univariate approach -122.4 -29.65 122.2* -43.5 -32.3*
(1194.8) (963.2) (1256) (601) (485.3)
Notes. Weights wR and wM are given in percent (WR WM 100) Standard errors (estimated from the simulation) are in parenthesis. * indicates statistical
difference (p < .05) between estimated and theoretical treatment effects (based on simulation standard errors).

4.1.2 Effect Estimates for MRDDs with different noise levels
It is true that extreme observations can increase variance and lead to bias
estimation. Table 3 and 4 shows the theoretical treatment effect according to the data-
generating for model 1 and 2 respectively (see Models 1 and 2 for two assignment
variables) at different noise level. The second line of each table shows that the true
effects are 8.00 .The first panel of the Table 3 shows the results for two assignment
variables on the same scale and same distribution at 0% noise level. That means the
data contains no extreme observation at all. All approaches provided treatment effects
similar to the true treatment effect. However with different standard errors. The
frontier approach estimates the effect with smaller standard error than centering and
univariate approaches. Hence all approaches estimated unbiased treatment effect
similar to the true effects, with frontier having higher precision at noise level zero.
When the noiseWe increase noise level to 5%, meaning the data contains 5% extreme
observations from the total sample size. First, we consider noise level at 5% and
frontier approach results in treatment effects between 8.04 and 8.01 at FR and FM
frontiers, and estimated 8.01 for the overall effect. Centering approach estimated 7.27
the oval effect with very a large standard error (33.7) and the overall effect estimated
by centering approach is quite different from the true effect so that means centering
approach fails to detect the effect at 5% noise level. The univariate approach results in
treatment effects between 10.55 and 10.80 at FR and FM frontiers, and estimated
10.71 for the overall effect with a large standard error but statistically similar
estimation with the true effect. Next, we consider noise level at 10% and frontier
approaches estimated the specific effect 7.94 and 7.87 at R and M frontier with very
small standard error. Frontier approach estimated the overall effect similar estimation
with noise level at 5% but the standard error is slightly larger than standard error at
5% so this is due to large number of extreme observations. Treatment effect estimated
from centering approaches is quite different from frontier and univariate centering
approach estimated. Centering approach provided the overall effect 4.51 with large
standard error (35.06). Therefore, the overall effect estimated from centering
approach is different from the true effect when we compare the true effect and the
estimated treatment effect from centering approach using t test. Univariate approach
estimated 8.17 and 8.59 for each frontier and 8.47 for the overall effect. When we
compare estimated effect from univariate and frontier approach, frontier approach

gives result more closely to true effect with small standard error. Table 4 shows
MRDD estimates at 25% noise level for model 2 with two assignment variables. The
Frontier approach results in treatment effects between 7.98 and 7.80 at R and M
frontiers, and 7.87 for the overall effect. There is no change in estimated the overall
effect at 5, 10 and 25 percent noise level but the standard errors are increasing slightly
when the noise level increase. The overall effect estimated from the Centering
approach is -0.64 which is quite different from the true effect and with the standard
error (35.53) however the negative sign doesnt mean that centering approach
estimated negative effect. The estimation value from all approaches depend on the
location of the true value so when the location of the true value is far from zero, the
sign of estimated effect from all approaches could also change. The univariate
approach estimated each specific effect 4.90 and 3.6.9 for R and M frontier
respectively and the overall effect is 4.13 with a large standard error (35.94) and
which implies that the overall effect and the specific effect estimated from univariate
approach are different from the true value. Hence, result from the simulation study
indicated that centering and univariate approach are sensitive to extreme observations.
In General by examining the three approaches at different noise level, frontier

approaches is robust in the presence of noise data and yields similar result with the
true effect whereas centering and univariate approach are very sensitive to extreme
observation at all noise level and gives biased treatment effect. By comparing the
three approaches, the frontier approach yields the most precise estimates in the
presence of noise data but centering and univariate approaches yields a biased
treatment effect with a very a large standard error.

Method of analysis R : 45, 10 cutoff 40
M : 55, 10 cutoff 60
Noise Weights & effects wR wM R M RMD
level
True effect 8.00 8.00 8.00

(0.01) (0.01) (0.43) (0.61) (0.48)
0%
(0.78)
(1.04) (0.94) (0.74)
variables (constant treatment effect)


(0.01) (0.01) (0.49) (0.70) (0.57)
5%
(0.79)
(1.10) (0.90) (0.75)
(0.01) (0.01) (0.53) (0.75) (0.61)
10%
(0.81)
Univariate approach 7.96* 8.02 7.43*
(1.16) (0.96) (0.80)
(0.01) (0.01) (0.53) (0.80) (0.62)
25%
(0.83)
Univariate approach 7.96 8.00 6.99*
(1.15) (1.04) (0.82)
Notes. Weights wR and wM are given in percent (WR WM 100) Standard errors (estimated
from the simulation) are in parenthesis. * indicates statistical difference (p < .05) between
estimated and theoretical treatment effects (based on simulation standard errors).

variables (with interaction treatment effect)
method of analysis R : 45, 10 cutoff 40
M : 55, 10 cutoff 60
Noise Weights & effects wR wM R M RMD
level
True effect 8.00 8.00 8.00
Frontier approach 0.33 0.67 8.01 8.00

8.00
(0.02) (0.02) (0.75) (1.13)
(1.04)
0%
(18.34)
(30.69) (46.13) (13.51)
(0.02) (0.02) (0.89) (1.52) (1.20)
5%
(33.70)
Univariate approach 10.55 10.80* 10.71
(30.93) (41.71) (30.9)
(0.02) (0.02) (1.13) (1.83) (1.46)
10%
(35.06)
Univariate approach 8.03 8.75* 8.47*
(32.64) (43.72) (31.80)
(0.01) (0.01) (1.62) (2.50) (2.03)
Centering approach -0.64*
25%
(37.00)
Univariate approach 4.90* 3.69* 4.13*
(36.20) (51.60 (35.94)
estimated and theoretical treatment effects (based on simulation standard errors

4.1.3 Effect Estimates for MRDDs with different correlation among assignment
variables
Its good to have a relationship between dependent and independent variables

but it is problematic when we have relationship between independent variables
because effect of a single variable is hard to measure and it can increase the variance
of the coefficient estimates and make the estimate very sensitive to minor changes in
the model. We assume that in MRDD, correlation among assignment variables may
affect the on the result of MRDD estimation. A series of simulation conducted to
study the effect of correlation among assignment variables and the result is displayed
in table 7 and 8 for model 1 and model 2 respectively. Generally in model 1(constant
treatment effect) gives an evidence that all approach gives the same estimated effect
whether in presence of correlation or not however when we consider model 2 (model
with interaction effect) provides an evidence that there is a difference. When there is
no correlation among assignment variables frontier, centering and univariate approach
gives the similar treatment effect but centering and univariate approaches estimated
the effect with large standard error. Next, we consider 0.2 correlation among
assignment variables then frontier and univariate produced unbiased treatment effect
but univariate approach estimated the treatment effect with large standard error.
Centering approach estimated the overall treatment effect 3.37 with large standard
error so centering approach produced biased treatment effect when there is a
correlation between assignment variables. As we increase the correlation among the
assignment variables frontier and univariate produced unbiased treatment effect while,
centering approach continue to produce biased treatment effect and failed to detect the
effect at all given correlation scenarios. By combing results from model 1 and 2 (see
table 7 & 8), In the presence of high or low correlation among assignment variables,
frontier and univariate approach produced unbiased treatment effect while centering
approaches produced biased treatment effect with a large standard error so Centering
approach is very sensitive to correlation between assignment variables


sample size for model 1(constant treatment effect)
M : 55, 10 cutoff 60
Correlation Weights & effects wR wM R M RMD
True effect 8.00 8.00 8.00

(0.01) (0.01) (0.41) (0.66) (0.55)
0
(0.76)
(1.02) (0.93) (0.73)
(0.01) (0.01) (0.43) (0.57) (0.45)
0.2 (0.75)
(1.02) (0.90) (0.72)
(0.01) (0.01) (0,26) (0.51) (0.42)
0.4
(0.74)
(1.05) (0.84) (0.69)
(0.01) (0.01) (0.50) (0.51) (0.42)
0.6
(0.74)
(1.07) (0.80) (0.69)
(0.01) (0.01) (0.48) (0.50) (0.42)
0.7 Centering approach 8.02
(0.70)
(1.09) (0.73) (0.64)


sample size for model 1(with interaction treatment effect)
M : 55, 10 cutoff 60
Correlation Weights & effects wR wM R M RMD
True effect 8.00 8.00 8.00

(0.01) (0.01) (0.00) (0.01) (0.01)
0
(0.31)
(0.30) (0.41) (0.30)
(0.01) (0.01) (0.71) (1.26) (0.1)
0.2
(0.35)
(0.31) (0.45) (0.33)
(0.02) (0.02) (0.76) (1.13) (0.01)
0.4
(0.34)
(0.32) (0.43) (0.33)
(0.3) (0.3) (0.82) (1.01) (0.84)
0.6
(0.35)
(0.31) (0.40) (031)
(0.02) (0.02) (0.76) (1.13) (0.09)
0.7 Centering approach 3.00*
(0.34)
(0.33) (0.38) (0.30)

4.2 Discussion
Our analytic and simulation work highlights the complexities of choosing an
appropriate causal estimation method in multivariate regression discontinuity design.
In many cases, the frontier average treatment effect may not have a meaningful
interpretation because it does not make sense to pool effects across multiple frontiers.
If at one frontier, the estimate indicates no effect and at the other frontier, a significant
positive effect, then the average effect across the entire frontier rests dependent on
weights of each frontier. In these cases, we recommend that researchers estimate
frontier-specific effects because and can provide at least upper and lower bounds for
the overall treatment effect. In addition, without strong assumptions (e.g., constant
treatment effects), the frontier-specific effects and is less general than what would be
obtained from a traditional univariate RDD with a corresponding assignment variable
and cutoff. That is because the cutoff of a traditional RDD is not restricted by the
cutoffs of additional assignment variables (e.g., units with M m excluded for
i c
estimating treatment effects at F ). Still, the presence of multiple cutoff-frontiers has
R
the advantage of exploring the heterogeneity of treatment effects along different
dimensions.
Finally, the frontier-specific and frontier average treatment effect cannot be

generalized beyond the sub-population of units that is close to the cutoff frontiers. As
with standard RDD, MRDD produces only the treatment effects along the cutoff
frontier(s) as opposed to across the entire response surface. Thus, researchers have the
responsibility of communicating to practitioners and policy-makers which causal
quantities are evaluated, explaining why these are the causal quantities of interest, and
discussing the benefits and limitations of the results. MRD designs where the
assignment variables are on the same metric in the same content area, it is reasonable
to pool effect estimates across multiple cutoff frontiers. Examples include: When
inhabitants are assigned to treatment on the basis of geographic coordinates (e.g.,
intersecting streets); when patients are assigned to treatment if their blood pressure
exceeds a certain threshold in all measurements; when unemployed persons are
assigned to a labor market program if their inflation-adjusted incomes fall below a
certain threshold over two consecutive years; and, when a cohort of students receive
coaching if they fail a certain aptitude test two years in a row. Note that the aptitude

test for both measurement periods has to be on the same metric. Two different reading
tests (e.g., for different grades), or a reading and a math test are not on the same
metric, even if their scores are calibrated to appear comparable. This is because the
test scores similarities are typically the result of deliberate standardization
procedures. Thus, the frontier average treatment effect and its interpretation would
depend on the calibration of test scores. researcher can then assess whether treatment
effects are constant across both cutoff frontiers, and if so, use the frontier or centering
approach to estimate an overall effect In general, the frontier approach performs well
in estimating treatment functions are correctly specified.
It also has the advantage of improved statistical efficiency for both the overall
and frontier-specific effects. However, because the true functional from of the
response is hardly ever known in practice, researchers may consider using the
centering approach for estimating complication of modeling a multi-dimensional
response surface. The issue here is that the centering approach may be prone to small
biases due to wider bandwidths and more complex functional forms caused by
pooling units from different cutoff frontiers. However, the bias might be mitigated by
using difference scores as the outcome whenever pretests are available to reduce the
complexity of the functional form and heterogeneity of the dependent variable.
In general, when the number of assignment variables exceeds two we

recommend against using centering approach for estimating the overall treatment
effect-. Although it yields unbiased estimates when its analytic assumptions are met,
simulation results indicate that the centering approach has reduced statistical precision
as compared to the other two methods. When the number of assignment is more than
two, frontier approach gives unbiased treatment effect. However, that it requires a
correct modeling of the response surface and a reliable estimate of the multivariate
density or univariate marginal and conditional densities. Because the true functional
form of the response surface is hardly ever known in practice, researchers may
consider using the centering approach for estimating to avoid the complications of
modeling a multi-dimensional response surface and estimating densities. The issue
here is that the centering approach may be R, given apron to small biases due to wider
bandwidths and more complex functional forms caused by pooling units from
different cutoff frontiers. However, the bias might be mitigated by using difference

scores as the outcome whenever pretests are available to reduce the complexity of the
functional form and heterogeneity of the dependent variable.
In this study, we have assumed that units are assigned to a single treatment
condition via two assignment variables and cutoffs, but this need not be the case.
Units may be assigned to one treatment condition for missing the R cutoff, another if
they miss the M cutoff, and both if they miss the R and M cutoffs together. This type
of MRD design raises several practical considerations for the researcher. First,
although the frontier and univariate assignment variable approaches can estimate
unbiased frontier-specific effects. In MRDD with multiple treatment conditions raises
questions about whether estimating a frontier average treatment effect is appropriate
and substantively interpretable given that it averages estimates across two unique
treatments. Third, treatment contrasts in an MRD design are limited to comparisons
along the cutoff frontiers. There may be cases, however, when the desired treatment
contrast is to compare outcomes from units that received the strongest treatment
dosage with those that received no treatment at all. In our example, units in quadrant
T2 might receive a stronger dosage of treatment because they missed both the R and
M cutoffs. However, the MRDD does not include these observations in the calculation
of treatment effects because they are not located at FM or FR. A researcher may
choose to redefine observations in Treatment units, and those in the remaining three
quadrants as the comparison cases. However, this treatment contrast would involve
comparing outcomes for units that missed both the R and M cutoffs (treatment cases)
with those that missed only one cutoff (comparison cases). Again, this may not be the
desired treatment contrast because treatment units are compared to those that have
received at least some treatment because they missed either the M or R cutoffs. This
predicament highlights one of the main design disadvantages of the MRDD, and one
that researchers should be aware of as they interpret their treatment effects.
Although this master thesis describes a set of strategies for analyzing data
from MRD designs, several issues in the analysis has limitations and some designs
deserve further attention. While, our study here has focused on the context of the
sharp MRD design, where we assumed no instances of treatment misallocation.
However, in many applications of MRDD, treatment crossover and no-show are likely
to occur. Traditionally, fuzziness around the RD cutoff is addressed by using the
assignment mechanism as an instrument for treatment receipt. Second, our study is

limited by the fact that frontier approach takes time to estimate treatment effect
because high dimensionality integral computation when computing average treatment
effects and weights for each assignment variables, besides, there is no statistical
package that handles frontier approach. So further work is need on development of
algorithms for frontier approach on the application of parametric and non-parametric
methods. Finally, our simulation did not examine the variation of distribution between
assignment variables, further work is needed for examining whether there are special
analytic issues and requirements for analyzing MRDDs with different distribution
between assignment variables.

CONCLUSION
5 CONCLUSION
5.1 Conclusion
Multivariate regression discontinuity designs are common in education and
many other fields. In principle, they provide an opportunity to obtain unbiased
estimates of treatment effects, using the same logic as single rating score RD designs
(Wong et al.2013). However, MRD designs contain some added complexity not
present in single RD designs. In particular, they present the researcher with multiple
possible estimands and multiple estimation strategies.
In this study, we discussed three estimation approaches of analyzing MRD

designs and compared their relative performance under Monte Carlo simulations
study. Result from the simulation shows that with two assignment variables, all the
proposed approaches produced unbiased treatment effect. (Wong et al. 2013) found
similar result with two assignment variables. When the dimensionality problem
increase, frontier approaches produced unbiased treatment effect. However, centering
and univariate approach estimated the effect with significant bias. Hence, these
estimation approaches differ in their estimands and their statistical power; they differ
also in the extent to which the assumptions on which they rely are easily assessed. As
we have noted, each approach has advantages as well as shortcomings (see table 2)
In determining which analytic approach (es) to use in MRD design analyses,

the first thing one should consider is the estimands of interest. Depending on how
many distinct treatment conditions are determined by the multiple rating scores, and
depending on what subpopulation is of most interest, the researcher may desire to
estimate different parameters. Depending on the choice of estimands, one or more
different MRDD strategies may be useful. The choice among these strategies should
be driven by considerations of statistical power and the ease with which the
identifying assumptions of the RD design are assessed.
Regardless of the strategy used, researchers should assess the extent to which
the data appear to support the assumption of exogenous determination of the rating
scores and cutoff scores, the assumption that potential outcomes are continuous as the
cutoff scores, and the assumption that the functional form of the model is correct
(Wong et al.2013). Each of these assumptions are most easily assessed using frontier
RD methods, because sub setting the data by frontier reduces the assumption checking

CONCLUSION
process to a series of well-defined single rating score RD designs, where methods of

checking the assumptions are well-defined (Imbens & Lemieux 2008). However, if
frontier approach is used to estimate the treatment effect, checking the functional
form assumptions can be done by inspecting the residuals from the fitted model, as we
describe above.
Although this study described a set of strategies for analyzing data from MRD
designs, several issues in the analysis has limitations and some designs deserve
further attention. While, our study here has focused on the context of the sharp MRD
design, where we assumed no instances of treatment misallocation. However, in many
applications of MRDD, treatment crossover and no-show are likely to occur.
Traditionally, fuzziness around the RD cutoff is addressed by using the assignment
mechanism as an instrument for treatment receipt. Second, our study is limited by the
fact that frontier approach takes time to estimate treatment effect because high
dimensionality integral computation when computing average treatment effects and
weights for each assignment variables, besides, there is no statistical package that
handles frontier approach. So further work is need on development of algorithms for
frontier approach on the application parametric and non-parametric methods. Finally,
our simulation didnt examine the variation of distribution between assignment
variables, further work is needed for examining whether there are special analytic
issues and requirements for analyzing MRDDs with different distribution between
assignment variables
Finally, an important feature of MRDD is the ability to study heterogeneity of

treatment effects. This feature allows us to simultaneously compare treatment effects
along multiple cutoff scores/dimensions, and to potentially identify situations where
policies and instructional practices are more effective. Just as different MRDD
approaches can yield different estimands s in the study of local average treatment
effects, they can address different questions regarding heterogeneity. frontier RD can
be used to study how the slope of the effect of the treatment received for attaining one
cutoff score differs along another rating score dimension.
5.2 Implications in practice

What do results presented in this study imply for practice? The obvious
question for most researchers is, Which approach should I use for estimating

CONCLUSION
treatment effects in a MRDD? by comparing the relative benefits and limitations of

the three approaches, our recommendation to use approaches based on objective and
characteristic of RDD data, so that researchers can choose an appropriate MRDD
method to estimate average treatment effect based on objective and characteristic of
the RD data. Therefore, based on RD data characteristic and parameter of interest, we
classified our recommendation in to four sections.
Section 1: Researchers are likely to encounter high dimension of assignment variables

in analyzing MRDD treatment effect. Result from Monte Carlo simulation study
shows that when RDD with high dimensional space of assignment variables, frontier
approach produced unbiased treatment effect in all the defined dimensional space.
Furthermore, univariate approach also produced unbiased treatment effect in two and
three dimensional space. However, with four assignment variable produced biased
treatment effect. Besides, centering approach reduced the power to detect the effect
when the number of assignment variable increase. because, for centering approach,
the discontinuity is estimated without using the frontier defined in a given dimension
but rather collapsing the frontier in one dimension and this dimension redaction
process does not take into account the distribution, correlation and metric of the
assignment variables. Due to those reasons centering approach produced biased
treatment effect when number assignment variable increase and univariate approach
also reduced power when the number of assignment variables increase. In univariate
approach each frontier is defined by excluding all observations less than the cut point
of other assignment variables. For this reason, when the number of assignment
variables increase, the rule to define a frontier also increase and sample size that
define for centering and univariate approach decrease. Therefore, the lack of
sufficient data near to the cutoff for univariate approach pull it out to produced biased
treatment effect when the number of assignment variables increase. It is
recommended to analyze RD using frontier approach when the number of assignment
variables greater than two. However with only two assignment variables frontier,
centering and univariate approaches provides similar results confirming the finding of
Wong et al. (2013). Consequently, we recommend to use the univariate approach to
estimate specific treatment effect and centering approach for overall effect since these
two approaches are very easy to implement as compared to the frontier approach.

CONCLUSION
Section 2: Our next recommendation deals RD data with some extreme observations.
Data are likely to contain some extreme observation. Our simulation study shows that
at 0% noise level, frontier, centering and univariate approaches produced similar
treatment effect and relatively similar with the true effect estimated. In addition, at
5% noise levet al.l approaches estimated treatment effect similar with treatment effect
estimated at 0%. Centering and univariate approach fails to detect the effect when the
noise level exceeds 5 percent. However, frontier approaches estimated the effect
without bias and the estimated treatment effects were similar to the true effect
estimated. Thus, frontier approaches is robust in the presence extreme observation
while centering and univariate approach are very sensitive to extreme observations.
Computing treatment effect using frontier approach with more than two assignment
variables was challenging and computational intensive. Therefore, our simulation
study was limited to two assignment variables. Due to those reasons, our
recommendation restricted only RDD with two assignment variables. Therefore, we
recommend to use frontier approach to estimate frontier specific and overall effect.
Section 3: Our third recommendation focuses on which estimation method to use

when a significant correlation among assignments variables exist. Results from the
simulation study shows that (see Table 5 and 6) estimated treatment effect using
Model 1 and Model 2 respectively. Generally, using Model 1(constant treatment
effect) computed treatment effect by frontier, centering and univariate approach
provided unbiased treatment effect whether in presence of correlation or not.
However, when we consider Model 2 (model with interaction effect) provides an
evidence that there is a significant difference treatment effect estimated from the three
approaches. When there is no correlation among assignment, all three approaches
provided similar treatment effect. However, the estimated standard error for centering
and univariate approaches were large compared estimated standard error reproduced
by frontier approach. When the correlation among assignment variables increase,
frontier and univariate produced unbiased treatment effect. However, centering
approach produced biased treatment effect and failed to detect the effect at all given
correlation scenarios. By combing results from model 1 and 2 (see Table 5 & 6), in
the presence of high or low correlation among assignment variables, frontier and
univariate approach produced unbiased treatment effect. However, centering
approaches produced biased treatment effect with a large standard error. Therefore,

CONCLUSION
centering approach is very sensitive to correlation between assignment variables. So,

in the presence of low or high correlation among assignment variable, we
recommended to use either frontier or univariate approach. However, all
recommendations are valid on RDD with two assignment variables, due to some
reasons we discussed above.
Section 4: Finally, our recommendation concludes with general case of RD data or

RDD data with multiple characteristic. For example, in the case of RD data with
multiple characteristic. Ex: when RD data contains significant correlation among
assignment variables, extreme observations and high dimension of assignment
variable. Therefore, in such situations our recommendation is to analyses the
treatment effect using frontier approach.

<REFERENCES
6 REFERENCES
Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., Schwalm, D. E., Carroll, J., & Hsuing, S. "Comparison of a
randomized and two quasi-experimental designs in a single outcome
evaluation: Efficacy of a university-level remedial writing program."
Evaluation Review 22 (1998): 207-244.
Angrist, J. D., & Lavy, V. "Using Maimonides' rule to estimate the effect of class size
on scholastic achievement." Quarterly Journal of Economics 144 (1999): 533-
576.
Baldauf, M. and J.M.C. Santos-Silva. "on the use of robust regression in
econometrics, ." , Economics Letters , 2012.
Berk, R. A., & Rauma, D. " Capitalizing on nonrandom assignment to treatments:A
regression-discontinuity evaluation of a crime-control program." Journal of
theAmerican Statistical Association 78 (1983): 21-27.
Berk, R., Barnes, G., Ahlman, L., & Kurtz. "When second best is good enough: A
comparison between a true experiment and a regression discontinuity
quasiexperiment." Journal of Experimental Criminology, n.d.
Bloom. "Modern regression discontinuity analysis." New York, NY: MDRC. , 2009.
Buddelmeyer, H., & Skoufias, E. "An evaluation of the performance of regression
discontinuity design on PROGRESA." World Bank Policy Research Working
Paper No. 3386, 2004.
Card, D., Chetty, R., & Weber, A. "Cash-on-hand and competing models of
intertemporal behavior: New evidence from the labor market." Quarterly
Journal of Economics 122(4) (2007): 1511-1560.
Cook, T. D., Wong, V. C., Steiner, P. M., Taylor, J., Gandhi, A., Kendziora, K., et al.
"Impacts of School Improvement Status on Students with Disabilities."
American Institutes for Research. , 2009.
Dimmery, D. "RDD: Regression Discontinuity Estimation R package ." , 2013.
Ellen Moscoe, Jacob Bor and Till Barnighausen. "Regression discontinuity designs
are underutilized in medicine, Epidemiology, and public health: a review of
current and best practice." Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 68 (2014): 132-
143.
Fan, J. "Design-Adaptive Non-Parametric Regression." Journal of the American
Statistical Association 87 (420) (1992): 998-1004.
Finkelstein, M., Levin, B., & Robbins, H. "Clinical and prophylactic trials with
assured new treatment for those at greater risk: I. A design proposal." Journal
of Public Health 5 (1996): 691-695.
Gelman, A. and Imbens, G. "Why High-order Polynomials should not be Used in
Regression Discontinuity Designs." National Bureau of Economic Research,
2014.

<REFERENCES
Gill, B., Lockwood, J. R., Martorell, F., Setodji, C. M., & Booker, K. " State and local
implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act. U.S. Department of
Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy
and Program Studies Service." 2007.
Hahn, J., Todd, P., & van der Klaauw, W. "Identification and estimation of treatment
effects with a regression-discontinuity design." Econometrica 69(1) (2001):
201-209.
Holland, P. W. "Statistics and causal inference." Journal of the American Statistical
Association 81 (1986): 945-968.
Imbens, G. and Kalyanaraman, K. "Optimal bandwidth choice for the regression
Discontinuity estimator." The Review of Economic Studies 79 (2012): 933-
959.
Imbens, G. W., & Lemieux, T. "Regression discontinuity designs." A guide to
practice. Journal of Econometrics 142(2) (2007): 615-635.
Jacob, B., & Lefgren, L. "Remedial education and student achievement: A regression-
discontinuity analysis." Review of Economics and Statistics LXXXVI (2004):
226-244 .
Jacob, Robin. "A Practical Guide to Regression Discontinuity." press from University
of Michigan , 2012.
Kane, T. J. "A quasi-experimental estimate of the impact of financial aid on college-
going." Working Paper 9703, National Bureau of Economic Research, 2003.
Lalive, R. "Unemployment benefits, unemployment duration, and postunemployment
jobs: A regression discontinuity approach." American Economic Review 97(2)
(2008): 108-112.
Lee DS, Lemieux T. "Regression discontinuity designs in economics." J Econ Lit
48(2) (2010;): 281-355.
Lee, D. S., & Lemieux, T. "Regression discontinuity designs in economics." NBER
Working Paper, 2009: 14723.
Matsudaira, J. " Mandatory summer school and student achievement." Journal of
Econometrics 142(2) (2008): 829-850.
McCrary, J. "Manipulation of the assignment variable in the regression discontinuity
design: A density test." Journal of Econometrics 142(2) ( 2008): 698-714.
Ou, D. " To leave or not to leave? A regression discontinuity analysis of the impact of
failing the high school exit exam." Economics of Education Review 29(2)
(2009): 171-186.
Papay, J. P., Murnane, R. J., & Willett, J. B. " The consequences of high school exit
examinations for low-performing urban students: Evidence from
Massachusetts." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 32(1) (2011): 5-
23.

<REFERENCES
reardon, Joseph p. robinson and sean f. "Multiple rating-score regression

discontinuity. ." Research paper University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
2014.
Reardon, S. F. and Robinson, J. P. "Regression discontinuity designs with multiple
rating-score variables." Journal of Research on Educational E_ectiveness,
2012: 83-104.
"Regression Discontinuity Designs." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Regression_discontinuity_design, n.d.
Robinson, J. P., & Reardon, S. F. "Multiple regression discontinuity design:
Implementation issues and empirical examples from education." Paper
presented at the Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness. , 2009.
Rubin, D. B. "Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and
nonrandomized studies." Journal of Educational Psychology 66 (1974): 688-
701.
Schochet, P. Z. "Statistical Power for Regression Discontinuity Designs in Education
Evaluations." Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 34(2) (2009):
38-266.
"Special issue on regression discontinuity)." Journal of Econometrics (2008), . (
142(2) (2008).
Stefanov, A., Gisin, N., Guinnard, O., Guinnard, L., and Zbinden, H. "Optical
quantum random number generator." Journal of Modern Optics 47 (2000):
595-598.
Thistlethwaite, D., & Campbell, D. "Regression-discontinuity analysis: An alternative
to the ex-post facto experiment." Journal of Educational Psychology 51
(1960): 09-317.
Trochim, W. "Research design for program evaluation: The regression-discontinuity
design." Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1984.
Van der Klaauw, W. "Estimating the effect of financial aid offers on colleg
enrollment: A regression-discontinuity approach." International Economic
Review 43(4) (2002): 1249-1287.
Wing, C. and Cook, T. D. " Strengthening The Regression Discontinuity Design
Using Additional Design Elements: A Within-Study Comparison," ." Journal
of Policy Analysis a, 2013: 1234.
Wong, Vivian C., Peter M. Steiner, and Thomas D. Cook. "Analyzing Regression-
Discontinuity Designs With Multiple Assignment Variables: A Comparative
Study of Four Estimation Methods." Journal of Educational and Behavioral
Statistics 38 (2) (2013).
Wood, Simon N. "Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction with R." Boca
Raton: CRC Press, 2006.

APPENDICES
7 APPENDICES
Appendix I: R script for multivariate regression
discontinuity design
####### 1. Frontier approach #####
# Comments
## Input arguments
#y : response/outcome variable
# X : numeric n-by-d matrix, columns representing assignments variables
# If y is null, the first column of X is taken for y and removed from X.
# cutpoints: numeric scalar/vector of cutpoint(s) of assignment variables in X.
# If null or not provided, a vector of zeros is used.
# If cutpoints has length < d, an error is returned. If It is a scalar,
# it is replicated d times. If length(cutpoints) > d, only the d first
# elements are retained.
# bandwidth: numeric scalar/vector of bandwidth(s) to be used for local regression
# and density estimation. When omitted or null, the function
# uses (default) Imbens-Kalyanaraman optimal bandwidths.
# For d > 1, bandwidths are averaged.
# kernel : string, kernel to be used for local regression. The default is
# "triangular". See RDestimate in rdd package for other possible choices
# stand : logical or (0/1), Should variables be standardized?
# (default is FALSE)
#Treated : logical, Should a vector indicating treated individuals be returned ?
# (default is FALSE)
## Outputs
mardd <- function(y=null, X, cutpoints=NULL, bandwidth=NULL,
kernel = "triangular", stand=0, Treated=FALSE)
{mrequire(rdd, quietly=TRUE, warn.conflicts=FALSE)
## (1.0) Check data type
if (!is.numeric(X)) stop("Design matrix X must be of numeric class.")
X <- as.matrix(X);n <- size(X,1); d <- size(X,2); # d = Number of assignment variables; n = sample size
if (is.null(y)) { # The first column of X is taken as response if y is not provided
if ( d >= 3) {y <- X[,1]; X <- X[,-1];d=d-1;}else{ # and more than 2 assignments were given
stop("At least two assignment variable are needed with a response variable.")}}else {
if (d > 7) stop("Reduce the number of assignment variables, up to 7 are allowed.")

if (!is.numeric(y)) stop("Response vector y must be of numeric type.")}
## (1.1) Check data consistensy (arguments' sizes)
if (n!=size(y,1)) stop("Response and assignments variables must have same length.")
if (is.null(cutpoints)) cutpoints <- rep(0,d)
cutpoints <- cutpoints[1:d]
if (d!=size(as.line(cutpoints),2)) {

Appendix I: R script for multivariate regression discontinuity design
if (prod(size(cutpoints))==1) { cutpoints <- cutpoints*rep(1,d)}else{

stop("Number of cut off point mismatches number of assignments variables.")}}
# (2) Computing bandwidths (same for all assignments as suggested by Wong et al. (2013) )
cutpoints <- as.vector(cutpoints);
if (!is.null(bandwidth) ){
if ( length(bandwidth) > d ) bandwidth <- bandwidth[1:d]
bd <- as.vector(bandwidth);
bd <- bd[!is.na(bd)];
}else{
bd <- rep(0,d)
for ( i in 1:d){
TRY <- tryCatch.W.E( IKbandwidth( X=X[,i],Y=y, cutpoint=cutpoints[i],kernel=kernel) )
if (is.numeric(TRY$value)) {bd[i] <-TRY$value} else {bd[i] <- NaN}
}
bd <- mean(bd[!is.na(bd)]); # averaging over assignment variables
if (is.na(bd)) stop(TRY$value) }
# (3) Standard deviations of assignment variables
stds <- mstd(X);
if (stand) {y <- stdiz(y); cutpoints <- (cutpoints - colMeans(X))/stds; X <- stdiz(X);}
# Define support limits for assignment variables
Minx <- mstd(X,min) ; Maxx <- mstd(X,max);
if (any( ((cutpoints < Minx) + (cutpoints > Maxx))> 0 )){
stop("Cutpoints out of range of assignment variable(s).")}
Maxx <- Maxx + 5*stds # + 10*abs(Maxx)*(Maxx!=0) +
#################################
# (4) Initialization of Quantities to be used
SepG <- zeros(n,d); # Vector to store information of treated/control ind.s
Margdc <- rep(0,d); # A vector to store marginal densities evaluated at cut off
Subw <- zeros(n,d);
## (5) Identification and weights according to each assignment variable
for (i in 1:d){# Identify control individuals considering i-th assig. var
SepG[,i] <- X[,i] >= cutpoints[i] + 0
Subw[,i] <- n*kernelwts( X[,i], cutpoints[i], bd)
}
##################################
## (6) Separate control and treated individuals
Icont <- rowSums(SepG)==d;
Itreat <- rowSums(SepG) < d;
n0 <- sum(Icont)
n1 <- sum(Itreat)
if(Treated) {Treated <-Itreat}else{Treated <- NA}
data0 <- data.frame(cbind( y[Icont] , X[Icont,] ))
data1 <- data.frame(cbind( y[Itreat] , X[Itreat,] ))

## (9) Regression function (potential treatment and control outcomes) estimtion

xnam <- paste0("x", 1:d)
fmla <- as.formula(paste("y ~ ", paste0("("), paste(xnam, collapse= "+"),paste0(")^2")))
names(data0) <- names(data1) <- c("y",xnam)
w <- n*mvkernelwts(X, cutpoints, bd)
w0 <- n0*mvkernelwts(data0[,2:(d+1)], cutpoints, bd)
w1 <- n1*mvkernelwts(data1[,2:(d+1)], cutpoints, bd)
mod0 <- lm(fmla,weights=w0,data=data0)
mod1 <- lm(fmla,weights=w1,data=data1)
par <- as.vector(mod1$coefficients - mod0$coefficients)
gfunc <- function(newX) {
newX <- data.frame( as.line(newX) )
names(newX) <- xnam
predict( mod1, newdata=newX) - predict( mod0, newdata=newX )
}
#par <- as.vector(par1 - par0)
#gfunc <- function(newX) {
# as.vector(as.line(c(1,newX))%*%par)}
##################################
mrequire(ks, quietly=TRUE, warn.conflicts=FALSE);
if (d==1) {Margdc <- kde(x=X,eval.points=cutpoints, h=bd, w=w)$estimate
OEffect <- CEffects <- gfunc(cutpoints)
return(list(OEffect=OEffect,CEffects=CEffects,Weights=1,CDensity=1,MDenssity=1,bandwidth=bd,
Ntreated=sum(Itreat), Treated=Treated,gpar=par))}
##################################
## (10) Weights and effects estimation
mrequire(R2Cuba, quietly=TRUE, warn.conflicts=FALSE);
Q <- rep(0,d); # A vector to store integral of conditional densities
CEffectN <- Q; # store integral of product of cond. density and difference in potential outcome
# function to add cut point in a vector of size d-1
xgf <- function(x,i){
if (i==1) return( c(cutpoints[1] , x) )
if (i>1 && i<d) return( c( x[1:(i-1)] , cutpoints[i], x[i:(d-1)] ) )
if (i==d) xg <- return( c(x , cutpoints[d]) )}
for (i in 1:d){
# define density functions
mdensity <-function(xeval) kde(x=X[,i],eval.points=xeval,h=bd,w=Subw[,i])$estimate
#, kernel = "epanechnikov")
if (d>2){
cdensity <- function(Xeval) kde(x=X[,-i], eval.points=Xeval, H=bd*diag(d-1),w=Subw[,i])$estimate
}else{
cdensity <- function(Xeval) kde(x=X[,-i], eval.points=Xeval, h=bd,w=Subw[,i])$estimate
}

# Evaluate density of the running variable at its cut off

Margdc[i] <- mdensity(cutpoints[i])
# Lower bounds
lowerLimit <- as.vector(cutpoints[-i])
# Upper bounds for integrations
upperLimit <- as.vector(Maxx[-i])
# Integrate the conditional density of the remaining assignment variables
#Qo = cuhre(ndim=(d-1), ncomp=1, integrand=cdensity,lower=lowerLimit, upper=upperLimit)#,

# rel.tol= 1e-3, abs.tol= 1e-12,
# flags= list(verbose=0, final=0))
if (d>2){
Q[i] <-cuhre(integrand=cdensity,ncomp=1,ndim=(d-1),lower=lowerLimit,upper=upperLimit, abs.tol=1e-03,
flags=list(verbose=0, final=0, pseudo.random=0, mersenne.seed=NULL) )$value
} else {
Q[i] <- integrate(f=cdensity, lower=lowerLimit, upper=upperLimit)$value
}
# Next, Integrate the product of conditional density and difference in potential outcome function
# Product of the two functions
gfi <- function(x){x <- as.vector(x);
gfunc(xgf(x,i))*cdensity(as.line(x))
}
if (d>2){
CEffectN[i] <- cuhre(integrand=gfi,ndim=d-1, ncomp=1, lower=lowerLimit, upper=upperLimit, abs.tol= 1e-03,
flags=list(verbose=0, final=0, pseudo.random=0, mersenne.seed=NULL))$value
}else{
CEffectN[i] <- integrate(f=gfi, lower=lowerLimit, upper=upperLimit)$value
}
}
# Get weights
Weights <- (Q*Margdc)/sum(Q*Margdc);
# Get conditional effects and overall effect
CEffects <- CEffectN/Q
OEffect <- sum( Weights*CEffects )
list(OEffect=OEffect, CEffects=CEffects, Weights=Weights, CDensity=Q,
MDenssity=Margdc, bandwidth=bd, Ntreated=sum(Itreat), Treated=Treated,gpar=par)}

####### 2. Centering approach #####

# Comments
## Input arguments
#* y : numeric vector (optional), response/outcome variable
#* X : numeric n-by-d matrix, columns representing assignments variables
# If y is null, the first column of X is taken for y and removed from X.
#* cutpoints: numeric scalar/vector of cutpoint(s) of assignment variables in X.
# If null or not provided, a vector of zeros is used.
# If cutpoints has length < d, an error is returned. If It is a scalar,
# it is replicated d times. If length(cutpoints) > d, only the d first
# elements are retained.
centrdd <- function(y,X,cutpoints)
{
X <- center(X,cutpoints)
X <- apply(X,1,FUN=min)
as.vector( RDestimate( y=y,X=X, cutpoints=0)$OEffect )
}
###### 3. Univariate approach #####

## Input arguments
#y : response/outcome variable
#X : numeric n-by-d matrix, columns representing assignments variables
# cutpoints: numeric scalar/vector of cutpoint(s) of assignment variables in X.
Univrdd <- function(y,X,cutpoints)
{
mrequire(rdd) # load rdd package
d <- size(X,2)
if (d>1){
Ts <- center(X,cutpoints) < 0
CEffects <- rep(0,d)
for (i in 1:d){
if (d>2) { Sel <- rowSums(Ts[,-i]) == 0
}else{
Sel <- Ts[,-i] == 0
}
CEffects[i] <- RDestimate( y=c(y[Sel]),X=c(X[Sel,i]), cutpoints=cutpoints[i] )$OEffect
}
CEffects
} else {
RDestimate(y~X,cutpoints=cutpoints)$est[1]
}
}

//Appendix II: Graphical analysis of RDD using paramedic and non-parametric method
Appendix II: Graphical analysis of RDD using paramedic and non-parametric method
160
160
140
140
120
120
dat$y
100
100
80
80
60
60
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20
dat$x
h=0.05,\tn bins=962
Figure 7: Treatment effect estimated using non parametric

Figure 6: Treatment effect estimated using parametric regression regression

//Appendix II: Graphical analysis of RDD using paramedic and non-parametric method
Methods of estimation MRDD: A comparative study of three estimation methods Page | 63

Methods For Estimating Regression Discontinuity Design With Multiple Assignment Variables A Comparative Study of 3 Estimation Methods

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Methods For Estimating Regression Discontinuity Design With Multiple Assignment Variables A Comparative Study of 3 Estimation Methods

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNIVERSITY OF ABOMEY CALAVI

Master Program in Statistics

Comparative Study of Three Estimation Methods linked

Key words: Multivariate regression discontinuity design, regression discontinuity,

However, multivariate regression discontinuity design contains some added

Comparative Study of Three Estimation Methods Linked To MRDD Page | 1

assignment is determined on the basis of two (or more) continuous assignment

In particular, multivariate regression discontinuity design provides multiple

Comparative Study of Three Estimation Methods Linked To MRDD Page | 2

frontier, centering and univariate approaches produced unbiased treatment effects

Comparative Study of Three Estimation Methods Linked To MRDD Page | 3

Therefore, this study aims to compare three MRDD estimation approaches in a

Comparative Study of Three Estimation Methods Linked To MRDD Page | 4

Specific objectives of the study were:

To assess the performance of MRDD estimation methods when the

1.3 Research Questions

1. What is the effect of high dimensionality of the assignment variables on

1.4 Research Hypotheses

Comparative Study of Three Estimation Methods Linked To MRDD Page | 5

2 PRINCIPLES OF REGRESSION DISCONTINUITY

Therefore, RDD is a popular quasi-experimental design used to evaluate

Comparative Study of Three Estimation Methods Linked To MRDD Page | 6

Example 3: When estimating the effect of differences in cigarette taxes on smoking

Obviously, RTC is not feasible for these examples because assignment of

2.1 Regression Discontinuity Design with a Single Assignment

Y (1 D ).Y (0) D .Y (1)

Comparative Study of Three Estimation Methods Linked To MRDD Page | 7

In a traditional RDD, units are assigned to treatment solely on the basis of a

E[Y (1) Y (0) | Z z ]

lim E[Y (1) | Z z ] lim E[Y (0) | Z z ]

Comparative Study of Three Estimation Methods Linked To MRDD Page | 8

represents the discontinuity (treatment effect) at the cutoff. However, for to be

lim E[Y (0) | Z z ] lim E[Y (0) | Z z ]

2.2 Regression Discontinuity Design with Multiple Assignment

Comparative Study of Three Estimation Methods Linked To MRDD Page | 9

E[Y (1) Y (0) | ( R , M , P , Q ) F ] [2]

Decomposition of the average treatment effect . Since the cutoff

w E[G | R F ] w E[G | M F ] w E[G | P F ] w E[G | Q F ]

Comparative Study of Three Estimation Methods Linked To MRDD Page | 10

the single frontiers F , F , F and F conditional expectations represent the average

g (a |a c ) denotes the difference in potential outcome function with the j th

Where D defined as (whatever the assignment variable):

Comparative Study of Three Estimation Methods Linked To MRDD Page | 11

Discussion is built to extend these checks to the case of MRDD. In particular,

Comparative Study of Three Estimation Methods Linked To MRDD Page | 12

To assess the plausibility of the second assumption continuity of potential

that each such variable exhibits no discontinuity at each of the J *2 J 1 frontiers.

lim E[ X | R r ] lim E[ X | R r ] for each X at each frontier. It may

Comparative Study of Three Estimation Methods Linked To MRDD Page | 13

Figure 1: Discontinuity with 2 rating score variables

Comparative Study of Three Estimation Methods Linked To MRDD Page | 14

Table 1: Assumptions of regression discontinuity design

2.4 Estimation Strategies for Multivariate Regression Discontinuity

determine treatment status, and T i the Binary variables indicating if individual is

Comparative Study of Three Estimation Methods Linked To MRDD Page | 15

in estimating the model. The inclusion of a vector X pre-treatment covariates in the

The choice of functional form of f used to model the average potential

overall effect. . In this study, we present the following three estimation

Comparative Study of Three Estimation Methods Linked To MRDD Page | 16

2.4.1 Frontier Approach

This procedure estimates the discontinuity along all frontiers simultaneously,

The algorism of frontier approach is presented in the following steps:

Step 3. Numerically integrate the product of treatment and joint density