Detecting Where Effects Occur by Testing Hypotheses in Order
Jake Bowers, David Kim, Nuole Chen

TL;DR
This paper introduces a top-down hierarchical testing procedure to identify where effects occur in multi-site experiments, significantly improving detection power over standard methods while maintaining error control.
Contribution
It develops a tree-based hypothesis testing method that enhances detection of effects in specific groups or sites, with valid error control and adaptive adjustments.
Findings
Detects effects in 44% of non-null blocks versus 11% with standard methods.
Provides a diagnostic for when no adjustment is needed based on power decay.
Applied to 25 education trials with an available R package.
Abstract
Experimental evaluations of public policies often randomize a new intervention within many sites or blocks. After a report of an overall result -- statistically significant or not -- the natural question from a policy maker is: \emph{where} did any effects occur? Standard adjustments for multiple testing provide little power to answer this question. In simulations modeled after a 44-block education trial, the Hommel adjustment -- among the most powerful procedures controlling the family-wise error rate (FWER) -- detects effects in only 11\% of truly non-null blocks. We develop a procedure that tests hypotheses top-down through a tree: test the overall null at the root, then groups of blocks, then individual blocks, stopping any branch where the null is not rejected. In the same 44-block design, this approach detects effects in 44\% of non-null blocks -- roughly four times the detection…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques · Data Analysis with R · Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
