Propensity score matching is a prominent strategy to reduce imbalance in observational studies. However, if imbalance is considerable and the control reservoir is small, either one has to match one control to several treated units or, alternatively, discard many treated persons. The first strategy tends to increase standard errors of the estimated treatment effects while the second might produce a matched sample that is not anymore representative of the original one. As an alternative approach, this paper argues to carefully reconsider the selection equation upon which the propensity score estimates are based. Often, all available variables that rule the selection process are included into the selection equation. Yet, it would suffice to concentrate on only those exhibiting a large impact on the outcome under scrutiny, as well. This would introduce more stochastic noise making treatment and comparison group more similar. We assess the advantages and disadvantages of the latter approach in a simulation study.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Publisher Info
Paper provided by Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) in its series IZA Discussion Papers with number
271.
Find related papers by JEL classification: C14 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods: General - - - Semiparametric and Nonparametric Methods C15 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods: General - - - Statistical Simulation Methods
Cited by: (explanations, Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.)