  How should one assess the credibility of assumptions weaker than statistical
independence, like quantile independence? In the context of identifying causal
effects of a treatment variable, we argue that such deviations should be chosen
based on the form of selection on unobservables they allow. For quantile
independence, we characterize this form of treatment selection. Specifically,
we show that quantile independence is equivalent to a constraint on the average
value of either a latent propensity score (for a binary treatment) or the cdf
of treatment given the unobservables (for a continuous treatment). In both
cases, this average value constraint requires a kind of non-monotonic treatment
selection. Using these results, we show that several common treatment selection
models are incompatible with quantile independence. We introduce a class of
assumptions which weakens quantile independence by removing the average value
constraint, and therefore allows for monotonic treatment selection. In a
potential outcomes model with a binary treatment, we derive identified sets for
the ATT and QTT under both classes of assumptions. In a numerical example we
show that the average value constraint inherent in quantile independence has
substantial identifying power. Our results suggest that researchers should
carefully consider the credibility of this non-monotonicity property when using
quantile independence to weaken full independence.
