IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/kan/wpaper/202020.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Covariate Balance Weighting Methods in Estimating Treatment Effects: An Empirical Comparison

Author

Listed:
  • Mingfeng Zhan

    (The Wang Yanan Institute for Studies in Economics, Xiamen University, Xiamen, Fujian 361005, China)

  • Zongwu Cai

    (Department of Economics, The University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045, USA)

  • Ying Fang

    (The Wang Yanan Institute for Studies in Economics and Department of Statistics, School of Economics, Xiamen University, Xiamen, Fujian 361005, China)

  • Ming Lin

    (The Wang Yanan Institute for Studies in Economics and Department of Statistics, School of Economics, Xiamen University, Xiamen, Fujian 361005, China)

Abstract

We conduct a series of simulations to compare the finite sample performance of the average treatment effect estimators based on four recently proposed methodologies — the covariate balancing propensity score method, the stable balance weighting approach, the calibration balance weighting procedure, and the integrated propensity score method. Simulation results show that the performance of the four covariate balance weighting methods are generally better than that for the conventional method, maximum likelihood estimation method without covariate balance, and among the four covariate balance weighting methods, it is difficult to tell which covariate balance weighting method can dominate the others.

Suggested Citation

  • Mingfeng Zhan & Zongwu Cai & Ying Fang & Ming Lin, 2020. "Covariate Balance Weighting Methods in Estimating Treatment Effects: An Empirical Comparison," WORKING PAPERS SERIES IN THEORETICAL AND APPLIED ECONOMICS 202020, University of Kansas, Department of Economics, revised Dec 2020.
    • Handle: RePEc:kan:wpaper:202020
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www2.ku.edu/~kuwpaper/2020Papers/202020.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kwun Chuen Gary Chan & Sheung Chi Phillip Yam & Zheng Zhang, 2016. "Globally efficient non-parametric inference of average treatment effects by empirical balancing calibration weighting," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 78(3), pages 673-700, June.
    2. Wan, Shui-Ki & Xie, Yimeng & Hsiao, Cheng, 2018. "Panel data approach vs synthetic control method," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 121-123.
    3. José R. Zubizarreta, 2015. "Stable Weights that Balance Covariates for Estimation With Incomplete Outcome Data," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 110(511), pages 910-922, September.
    4. Kosuke Imai & Marc Ratkovic, 2014. "Covariate balancing propensity score," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 76(1), pages 243-263, January.
    5. Pedro H. C. Sant'Anna & Xiaojun Song & Qi Xu, 2022. "Covariate distribution balance via propensity scores," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 37(6), pages 1093-1120, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pedro H. C. Sant'Anna & Xiaojun Song & Qi Xu, 2022. "Covariate distribution balance via propensity scores," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 37(6), pages 1093-1120, September.
    2. Cousineau, Martin & Verter, Vedat & Murphy, Susan A. & Pineau, Joelle, 2023. "Estimating causal effects with optimization-based methods: A review and empirical comparison," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 304(2), pages 367-380.
    3. Vahe Avagyan & Stijn Vansteelandt, 2021. "Stable inverse probability weighting estimation for longitudinal studies," Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, Danish Society for Theoretical Statistics;Finnish Statistical Society;Norwegian Statistical Association;Swedish Statistical Association, vol. 48(3), pages 1046-1067, September.
    4. Shixiao Zhang & Peisong Han & Changbao Wu, 2023. "Calibration Techniques Encompassing Survey Sampling, Missing Data Analysis and Causal Inference," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 91(2), pages 165-192, August.
    5. Phillip Heiler, 2020. "Efficient Covariate Balancing for the Local Average Treatment Effect," Papers 2007.04346, arXiv.org.
    6. Sean Yiu & Li Su, 2022. "Joint calibrated estimation of inverse probability of treatment and censoring weights for marginal structural models," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 78(1), pages 115-127, March.
    7. Zhang, Xiaoke & Xue, Wu & Wang, Qiyue, 2021. "Covariate balancing functional propensity score for functional treatments in cross-sectional observational studies," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    8. Sean Yiu & Li Su, 2018. "Covariate association eliminating weights: a unified weighting framework for causal effect estimation," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 105(3), pages 709-722.
    9. Martin Cousineau & Vedat Verter & Susan A. Murphy & Joelle Pineau, 2022. "Estimating causal effects with optimization-based methods: A review and empirical comparison," Papers 2203.00097, arXiv.org.
    10. Ruoqi Yu, 2021. "Evaluating and improving a matched comparison of antidepressants and bone density," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 77(4), pages 1276-1288, December.
    11. Debashis Ghosh & Michael S. Sabel, 2022. "A Weighted Sample Framework to Incorporate External Calculators for Risk Modeling," Statistics in Biosciences, Springer;International Chinese Statistical Association, vol. 14(3), pages 363-379, December.
    12. Susan Athey & Guido W. Imbens & Stefan Wager, 2018. "Approximate residual balancing: debiased inference of average treatment effects in high dimensions," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 80(4), pages 597-623, September.
    13. Chunrong Ai & Oliver Linton & Kaiji Motegi & Zheng Zhang, 2021. "A unified framework for efficient estimation of general treatment models," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(3), pages 779-816, July.
    14. Dasom Lee & Shu Yang & Lin Dong & Xiaofei Wang & Donglin Zeng & Jianwen Cai, 2023. "Improving trial generalizability using observational studies," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 79(2), pages 1213-1225, June.
    15. Dmitry Arkhangelsky & Guido W. Imbens, 2019. "Doubly Robust Identification for Causal Panel Data Models," Papers 1909.09412, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2022.
    16. Chen, Shanting & Mallory, Allen B., 2021. "The effect of racial discrimination on mental and physical health: A propensity score weighting approach," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 285(C).
    17. Peter H. Egger & Filip Tarlea, 2021. "Comparing Apples to Apples: Estimating Consistent Partial Effects of Preferential Economic Integration Agreements," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 88(350), pages 456-473, April.
    18. María de los Angeles Resa & José R. Zubizarreta, 2020. "Direct and stable weight adjustment in non‐experimental studies with multivalued treatments: analysis of the effect of an earthquake on post‐traumatic stress," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 183(4), pages 1387-1410, October.
    19. Susan Athey & Guido W. Imbens, 2017. "The State of Applied Econometrics: Causality and Policy Evaluation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 31(2), pages 3-32, Spring.
    20. Huber, Martin, 2019. "An introduction to flexible methods for policy evaluation," FSES Working Papers 504, Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences, University of Freiburg/Fribourg Switzerland.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Covariate balance; Propensity score; Treatment effects;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C3 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables
    • C5 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric Modeling

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kan:wpaper:202020. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Professor Zongwu Cai (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deuksus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.