AEEECTDO

• Principal Investigators: Pedro Rey Biel, Uri Simonsohn
• Funding body: Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades (MICIU)
• Duration: 01/09/2023 - 31/08/2026

• Reference: PID2022-142172NB-I00 

  ---

The main objective of the project is to advance knowledge about how different forms of evaluation affect the results in three important topics with social relevance:
 

1. The evaluation of candidates who access a professional position. This research will cross the data from tests for access to the labor market, such as the Resident Medical Intern (MIR) exam, with labor data from Social Security, to study whether the differences that have historically occurred in the design of Professional entrance exams have had medium- and long-term employment consequences among candidates (both in the type of position occupied, as well as in the promotion of the labor career or in salaries). Specifically, using the historical series of more than forty years of the MIR exams, to which we will have access thanks to an agreement that we are about to sign with the Ministry of Health, we propose to study the different response strategies between men and women in these tests, and investigate whether, having this possible difference, it has an effect on the final grade they obtain, which in turn is reflected in the type of position they choose.
    

2. The design of an evaluation method in different market alternatives, which allows a better translation of preferences into recommendation systems among consumers. This project will develop a framework for designing better scales that extract more signal. They are "action" scales, rather than "evaluative" scales. Our study proposes carrying out several field experiments, carried out in collaboration with several companies with which we have had initial contacts, and with different online evaluation platforms, which allow us to compare the effectiveness and extraction of information obtained with different ways of evaluating the products.
    

3. The evaluation of the existing scientific evidence in order to increase its adoption by those responsible for public policies. Our study aims to advance the scant literature (Hjort et al., American Economic Review, 2021) that explores the links between research and policymaking through a field experiment on the various limitations that can limit the use of scientific evidence to when deciding public policy. The project proposes an RCT in which scientific evidence on an effective and inexpensive public policy will be sent to those responsible for a large number of municipalities and we will vary, in different treatments, the way in which political leaders are informed about it. The study will measure the degree of adoption of the policy based on various factors such as the ideological identity of the person sending the information, the ideological perception of the policy that is suggested or the format in which the information is given to the political leaders. Through the identification of constraints to policymaking, our study will contribute to understanding how to design research communication to increase the adoption of evidence-based policies, eventually leading to better policies and higher levels of well-being.