Heckman correction

Abstract: Research summary: The use of Heckman models by strategy scholars to resolve sample selection bias has increased by more than 700 percent over the last decade, yet significant inconsistencies exist in how they have applied and interpreted these models. In view of these differences, we explore the drivers of sample selection bias and review how Heckman models alleviate it. We demonstrate three important findings for scholars seeking to use Heckman models: First, the independent variable of interest must be a significant predictor in the first stage of a model for sample selection bias to exist. Second, the significance of lambda alone does not indicate sample selection bias. Finally, Heckman models account for sample-induced endogeneity, but are not effective when other sources of endogeneity are present. Managerial summary: When nonrandom samples are used to test statistical relationships, sample selection bias can lead researchers to flawed conclusions that can, in turn, negatively impact managerial decision-making. We examine the use of Heckman models, which were designed to resolve sample selection bias, in strategic management research and highlight conditions when sample selection bias is present as well as when it is not. We also distinguish sample selection bias, a form of omitted variable (OV) bias, from more traditional OV bias, emphasizing that it is possible for models to have sample selection bias, traditional OV bias, or both. Accurately identifying the type(s) of OV bias present is essential to effectively correcting it. We close with several recommendations to improve practice surrounding the use of Heckman models. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Abstract: Issues of selection bias pervade criminological research. Despite their ubiquity, considerable confusion surrounds various approaches for addressing sample selection. The most common approach for dealing with selection bias in criminology remains Heckman’s [(1976) Ann Econ Social Measure 5:475–492] two-step correction. This technique has often been misapplied in criminological research. This paper highlights some common problems with its application, including its use with dichotomous dependent variables, difficulties with calculating the hazard rate, misestimated standard error estimates, and collinearity between the correction term and other regressors in the substantive model of interest. We also discuss the fundamental importance of exclusion restrictions, or theoretically determined variables that affect selection but not the substantive problem of interest. Standard statistical software can readily address some of these common errors, but the real problem with selection bias is substantive, not technical. Any correction for selection bias requires that the researcher understand the source and magnitude of the bias. To illustrate this, we apply a diagnostic technique by Stolzenberg and Relles [(1997) Am Sociol Rev 62:494–507] to help develop intuition about selection bias in the context of criminal sentencing research. Our investigation suggests that while Heckman’s two-step correction can be an appropriate technique for addressing this bias, it is not a magic solution to the problem. Thoughtful consideration is therefore needed before employing this common but overused technique.