NEW UPDATE: Completed trials may now upload and register supplementary documents (e.g. null results reports, populated pre-analysis plans, or post-trial results reports) in the Post Trial section under Reports, Papers, & Other Materials.
The Impact of Computer-Generated Credit Scoring on Lending in Colombia
Initial registration date
February 08, 2017
February 08, 2017 7:48 PM EST
Other Primary Investigator(s)
London School of Economics
Additional Trial Information
We distinguish the impact of information technology adoption on information processing costs and agency costs by conducting a randomized control trial with a bank that adopts a new credit-scoring tool. The availability of scores significantly increases credit committees' effort and output on difficult-to- evaluate loan applications. Output increases almost as much in a treatment where the committee receives no new information, but anticipates the score becoming available after it evaluates a application, which suggests that scores reduce incentive problems inside the credit committee. We also show that scores improve efficiency by decentralizing decision-making and equalizing marginal returns across loans.
Paravisini, Daniel and Antoinette Schoar. 2017. "The Impact of Computer-Generated Credit Scoring on Lending in Colombia." AEA RCT Registry. February 08.
Intervention Start Date
Intervention End Date
Primary Outcomes (end points)
Effects of computer-generated credit scores on small enterprise loans; Impact of information technology adoption on decision-making
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
We implement a four-month pilot program with an RCT design in eight urban branches. In each pilot branch we randomly select the treatment applications for which the committee will be able to see the score of the applicant. Randomization occurs in real time when the committee begins to discuss an application. The committee members are informed of the group assignment at the beginning of the discussion.
In the control group, the committee evaluates the application without observing the score. In the first treatment group (T1), the committee receives the score before evaluating the application. This first treatment allows us to measure the overall effect of scores on committee effort, output and productivity. In the second treatment group (T2), the committee evaluates the application and chooses an interim action before receiving the score, receives the score after taking the interim action, and then may revise its choice to take a final action.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization by computer
Was the treatment clustered?
Sample size: planned number of clusters
Sample size: planned number of observations
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
335 individuals in the control group
563 individuals in treatment group 1 (T1)
523 individuals in treatment group 2 (T2)
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARDS (IRBs)
Study has received IRB approval. Details not available.
IRB Approval Date
Details not available
IRB Approval Number
Details not available
Post Trial Information
Is the intervention completed?
Intervention Completion Date
May 31, 2011, 12:00 AM +00:00
Is data collection complete?
Data Collection Completion Date
June 30, 2011, 12:00 AM +00:00
Final Sample Size: Number of Clusters (Unit of Randomization)
Was attrition correlated with treatment status?
Final Sample Size: Total Number of Observations
Final Sample Size (or Number of Clusters) by Treatment Arms
335 individuals in the control group, 563 individuals in T1, 523 individuals in T2
Reports, Papers & Other Materials
Paravisini, Daniel, and Antoinette Schoar. "The Incentive Effect of IT: Randomized Evidence from Credit Committees." NBER Working Paper No. 19303, August 2013.
REPORTS & OTHER MATERIALS