x

We are happy to announce that all trial registrations will now be issued DOIs (digital object identifiers). For more information, see here.
An Experimental Evaluation of a Matching Market Mechanism
Last registered on September 18, 2019
View Trial History

Pre-Trial

Trial Information
General Information
Title
An Experimental Evaluation of a Matching Market Mechanism
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0004718
Initial registration date
September 17, 2019
Last updated
September 18, 2019 12:30 PM EDT
Location(s)

This section is unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access to this information.

Request Information
Primary Investigator
Name
Damon Jones
Affiliation
University of Chicago
Contact Primary Investigator
Other Primary Investigator(s)
PI Name
Jonathan Davis
PI Affiliation
University of Oregon
Contact Investigator
PI Name
Kyle Greengberg
PI Affiliation
United States Military Academy at West Point
Contact Investigator
Additional Trial Information
Status
In development
Start date
2019-10-02
End date
2020-10-31
Keywords
Firms & Productivity, Labor
Additional Keywords
JEL code(s)
D82, M5, J4
Secondary IDs
Abstract
We propose using a randomized controlled trial to measure the impact of replacing a status quo job assignment process within a large-scale employer with a system based on insights from matching and market design on match outcomes, in particular, using a deferred acceptance algorithm to match employees with positions.
External Link(s)
Registration Citation
Citation
Davis, Jonathan, Kyle Greengberg and Damon Jones. 2019. "An Experimental Evaluation of a Matching Market Mechanism." AEA RCT Registry. September 18. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.4718-2.0.
Sponsors & Partners
Experimental Details
Interventions
Intervention(s)
We propose replacing the current system of manually matching employees to positions with an algorithmic match based on the deferred acceptance algorithm.
Intervention Start Date
2019-10-02
Intervention End Date
2020-01-31
Primary Outcomes
Primary Outcomes (end points)
Our three main measures of match quality will be (1) satisfaction with the match, (2) performance in the match, and (3) retention with the organization.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Our three main measures of match quality will be (1) satisfaction with the match, (2) performance in the match, and (3) retention with the Army. We will measure satisfaction with the match using officers’ and units’ rank-ordered preferences over potential matches. This is a measure of ex-ante satisfaction with a match. We may also be able to measure realized job satisfaction via survey questions that will be included in Human Resource Command's existing officer surveys.

We will measure the impact on performance using promotion outcomes and officer’s annual performance evaluations. Our main promotion outcome will be the time to the next promotion. The performance evaluations include a categorical rating (Most qualified, Highly qualified, Qualified, and Unqualified) and a text-based evaluation that can be mapped to a rank ordered performance rating that is highly predictive of future promotions. In particular, we will use the predicted rank from the text-based evaluation as a quantitative measure of performance.

During the three-year project period, we will measure retention using one- and two-year retention rates. In addition, we will measure retention outcomes for as long as our data agreement allows.
Secondary Outcomes
Secondary Outcomes (end points)
There is a possibility that we will be able measure additional measures of match-relevant outcomes for the family, including fertility decisions, marriage and divorce rates, and measures of spousal volunteerism.
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
Experimental Design
Experimental Design
We will test the impact of matching via the deferred acceptance algorithm using a randomized controlled trial.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
We will use a pseudo-random number generator to assign markets to the treatment or control group.
Randomization Unit
Market of employees and positions within the firm, based on rank in the organization and specialty.
Was the treatment clustered?
Yes
Experiment Characteristics
Sample size: planned number of clusters
120 markets
Sample size: planned number of observations
11,500 employees
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
60 treatment and 60 control markets
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
The MDE on one-year retention rates if covariates explain 10 percent of residual variation is 1.5 percentage points (pp) if
Supporting Documents and Materials
IRB
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARDS (IRBs)
IRB Name
University of Chicago Social and Behavioral Sciences Institutional Review Board
IRB Approval Date
2019-09-17
IRB Approval Number
IRB19-1362
Analysis Plan