The Validity of Comparative Experiments

By F. J. Anscombe. 1948

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

1. Terence J. O'Neill
2. Borek D. Puza
3. Jasjeet S. Sekhon
4. Joshua P. Darr
5. Guido W. Imbens
6. Lisa R. Goldberg
7. Fabio B. Gaertner
8. José R. Zubizarreta

Citations in the corpus

• Opiates for the Matches: Matching Methods for Causal Inference (2009, methodology): “It is thus unsurprising that the Neyman model quickly became the standard way of describing potential outcomes of randomized experiments: for example, Pitman (1937); Welch (1937); McCarthy (1939); Anscombe (1948); Kempthorne (1952, 1955). The most complete discussion I know of before Rubin’s work is”
• Causal Inference Using Potential Outcomes (2005, methodology): “, Welch 1937; Pitman 1938; McCarthy 1939; Anscombe 1948; Kempthorne 1952; Cox 1958; Brillinger, Jones, and Tukey 1978). Although there are allusions to the intuitive idea of using po tential outcomes to define causal effects generally in the preced ing Fisher (1918) quotation and in many other place”
• Generalised Clopper–Pearson confidence intervals for the binomial proportion (2006, methodology): “The ordinary RCI, as originally formulated byAnscombe [11], is defined by t (p) = 1/2 (constant).”