# Misclassification in Difference-in-differences Models

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.11890 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.11890/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- First posted on arXiv 25 Jul 2022.

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Does Scientific Writing Converge to U.S. English? Evidence from Generative AI-Assisted Publications](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.11687/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

The difference-in-differences (DID) design is one of the most popular methods used in empirical economics research. However, there is almost no work examining what the DID method identifies in the presence of a misclassified treatment variable. This paper studies the identification of treatment effects in DID designs when the treatment is misclassified. Misclassification arises in various ways, including when the timing of a policy intervention is ambiguous or when researchers need to infer treatment from auxiliary data. We show that the DID estimand is biased and recovers a weighted average of the average treatment effects on the treated (ATT) in two subpopulations -- the correctly classified and misclassified groups. In some cases, the DID estimand may yield the wrong sign and is otherwise attenuated. We provide bounds on the ATT when the researcher has access to information on the extent of misclassification in the data. We demonstrate our theoretical results using simulations and provide two empirical applications to guide researchers in performing sensitivity analysis using our proposed methods.