This type of robustness monitors are given from the baseline testing report (Plunge one thousand Analysis Group 2016)

C. Mathematical Study

To look at program outcomes to your IPV and you can paths, the research taken advantage of the usage good cutoff threshold placed on an ongoing system qualification directory (PMT rating) to determine treatment and comparison teams. Ergo, email address details are good on population within the tolerance and perform not show the full distribution of socioeconomic standing during the analysis groups. As the good discontinuity is employed on the project of the want LGBT dating site reviews treatment, i make sure this new issues that generally have to hold to own a regular regression discontinuity design approach to end up being legitimate inside our investigation, and zero manipulation at threshold otherwise knowledge of the brand new formula by the possible beneficiaries so you’re able to influence its qualification reputation. Brand new authoritative decide to try out-of harmony between review and you can treatment communities was in addition to reported with the latest test inside the dining tables dos and you can 3 (col. 10). In the full concentrating on get it done conducted, this new PMT scores varied from ?3.294 to 4.601 z-scores, throughout the analysis sample, brand new PMT score start from ?0.571 so you’re able to 0.324 z-scores, with the program qualifications cutoff during the ?0.106 z-score ( simple deviation = 0.thirty two ). six Houses was in fact systematically tested around the cutoff having evaluation motives, and the ensuing domiciles regarding cures try try contained in this 0.46 important deviations of one’s cutoff, and all comparison properties is actually inside 0.43 fundamental deviations of your own cutoff. Because of the quick threshold of shipment from sampled property around new PMT rating, an easy Did was utilized to check on the newest impacts of one’s program: eight

Manage variables found in the analysis included individual- and you may household-level signs and you will society-height repaired consequences. 8 At the personal top, we controlled to own age (in many years) and you will symptoms for the certified training out-of both lady and partner. nine Next, within the data of complete test, i manage for being for the a good polygamous commitment (reference group is actually nonpolygamous or, for simple description, a beneficial monogamous partnership). Household-height handle variables provided household proportions as well as the PMT score. ten We declaration new manner of all the section indicator parameters in the descriptive equilibrium and you will attrition dining tables; although not, once we were area-level repaired effects, these evidence are not used in regression investigation (districts: East Mamprusi, Karaga, and you will Yendi regarding Northern Part and you may Bongo and Garu Tempane on the Higher Eastern Part). To assess differences by relatives framework, i come together the fresh new sign for polygamous connection with the treatment indicator, go out indication, and you can perception imagine (undertaking a triple interaction name): eleven

D. Attrition

Attrition over the panel period has potential to threaten the internal validity and generalizability of the findings. Overall attrition in our analytic sample is approximately 10%, slightly higher than the overall household sample rate of 6.6%, and does not vary significantly between treatment and comparison samples ( p -value = .35 using a simple t-test; Table 1). Further, we investigate whether the sample lost to follow-up differs significantly from our panel sample in terms of IPV outcomes, control variables, or pathway indicators (tables 2, 3). Column 7 shows the mean difference between the sample lost to follow-up in the treatment group, as compared with the same in the comparison group. Column 8 shows the p-value of this difference derived from a regression using treatment to predict the specific indicator, controlling for the PMT score and restricting to attritors. Table 2 shows that across 12 background characteristics and 14 pathway variables, only one is significant at the p < .05 level (there is a statistically significantly higher proportion of the treatment group lost to follow-up as compared with the comparison group in Bongo district). Table 3 shows that across 15 outcome indicators, the only ones to show evidence of differential attrition at p < .05 or lower are those measuring the frequency of sexual IPV (means of those lost to follow-up in the comparison group are slightly higher at .28 vs. the treatment group at .26). These results indicate that the potential for bias in overall findings due to attrition is low. Despite these promising results, we do find that women leaving our sample across both treatment arms differ in terms of background characteristics from those who remain in our sample (p-values shown in cols. 3 and 6). For example, women who leave the sample are generally younger, better educated, in monogamous partnerships (vs. polygamous), and live in smaller households. This may be reflective of rural-to-urban migration or other mobility patterns, although these differences are not generally observed for pathway variables, including indicators of economic standing.