IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/laa/wpaper/09.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Propensity Score Methods for Causal Inference: On the Relative Importance of Covariate Selection, Reliable Measurement, and Choice of Propensity Score Technique

Author

Listed:
  • Peter M. Steiner

    () (University of Wisconsin–Madison)

Abstract

The popularity of propensity score (PS) methods for estimating causal treatment effects from observational studies has increased during the past decades. However, the success of these methods in removing selection bias mainly rests on strong assumptions, like the strong ignorability assumption, and the competent implementation of a specific propensity score technique. After giving a brief introduction to the Rubin Causal Model and different types of propensity score techniques, the paper assess the relative importance of three factors in removing selection bias in practice: (i) The availability of covariates that are related to both the selection process and the outcome under investigation; (ii) The reliability of the covariates’ measurements; And (iii) the choice of a specific analytic method for estimating the treatment effect—either a specific propensity score technique (PS matching, PS stratification, inverse-propensity weighting, and PS regression adjustment) or standard regression approaches. The importance of these three factors is investigated by reviewing different within-study comparisons and meta-analyses. Within-study comparisons enable an empirical assessment of PS methods’ performance in removing selection bias since they contrast the estimated treatment effect from an observational study with an estimate from a corresponding randomized experiment. The empirical evidence indicates that the selection of covariates counts most in reducing selection bias, their reliable measurement next most, and the mode of data analysis—either a specific propensity score technique or standard regression—is of least importance. Additional evidence suggests that the crucial strong ignorability assumption is most likely met if pretest measures of the outcome or constructs that directly determine the selection process are available and reliably measured.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter M. Steiner, 2011. "Propensity Score Methods for Causal Inference: On the Relative Importance of Covariate Selection, Reliable Measurement, and Choice of Propensity Score Technique," Working Papers 09, AlmaLaurea Inter-University Consortium.
  • Handle: RePEc:laa:wpaper:09
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www2.almalaurea.it/universita/pubblicazioni/wp/pdf/wp09.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2011
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert J. LaLonde, 1984. "Evaluating the Econometric Evaluations of Training Programs with Experimental Data," Working Papers 563, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..
    2. David S. Lee & Thomas Lemieux, 2010. "Regression Discontinuity Designs in Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, pages 281-355.
    3. Steven Glazerman & Dan M. Levy & David Myers, "undated". "Nonexperimental Versus Experimental Estimates of Earnings Impacts," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 7c8bd68ac8db47caa57c70ee1, Mathematica Policy Research.
    4. Shadish, William R. & Clark, M. H. & Steiner, Peter M., 2008. "Can Nonrandomized Experiments Yield Accurate Answers? A Randomized Experiment Comparing Random and Nonrandom Assignments," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 103(484), pages 1334-1344.
    5. LaLonde, Robert J, 1986. "Evaluating the Econometric Evaluations of Training Programs with Experimental Data," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, pages 604-620.
    6. Manning, Willard G. & Basu, Anirban & Mullahy, John, 2005. "Generalized modeling approaches to risk adjustment of skewed outcomes data," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, pages 465-488.
    7. Heller, Ruth & Rosenbaum, Paul R. & Small, Dylan S., 2009. "Split Samples and Design Sensitivity in Observational Studies," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 104(487), pages 1090-1101.
    8. Heckman, James, 2013. "Sample selection bias as a specification error," Applied Econometrics, Publishing House "SINERGIA PRESS", pages 129-137.
    9. Heckman, James J, 1974. "Shadow Prices, Market Wages, and Labor Supply," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 42(4), pages 679-694, July.
    10. Thomas D. Cook & William R. Shadish & Vivian C. Wong, 2008. "Three conditions under which experiments and observational studies produce comparable causal estimates: New findings from within-study comparisons," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(4), pages 724-750.
    11. Guido W. Imbens, 2004. "Nonparametric Estimation of Average Treatment Effects Under Exogeneity: A Review," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, pages 4-29.
    12. Ho, Daniel E. & Imai, Kosuke & King, Gary & Stuart, Elizabeth A., 2007. "Matching as Nonparametric Preprocessing for Reducing Model Dependence in Parametric Causal Inference," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, pages 199-236.
    13. Juan José Díaz & Sudhanshu Handa, 2005. "An Assessment of Propensity Score Matching as a Non Experimental Impact Estimator: Evidence from Mexico's PROGRESA Program," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 2999, Inter-American Development Bank.
    14. Juan Jose Diaz & Sudhanshu Handa, 2006. "An Assessment of Propensity Score Matching as a Nonexperimental Impact Estimator: Evidence from Mexico’s PROGRESA Program," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    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:laa:wpaper:09. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (). General contact details of provider: http://www.almalaurea.it .

    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 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.