Evaluating Different Covariate Balancing Methods
A Monte Carlo Simulation
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 8021027 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Hideki Fukui (0000-0003-1209-3059, Ehime University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2023 |
| Volume | 14 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 205-326 |
| Publication date | 2023-06-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Statistics Politics and Policy (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2151-7509 • E-ISSN: 2194-6299 |
| Publisher | De Gruyter (PUBLISHER • DE) |
| DOI | 10.1515/spp-2022-0019 |
| OpenAlex | W4385234307 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
| References cited | 42 |
We investigate the effectiveness of five weighting and matching techniques, including propensity score matching (PSM), in improving covariate balance and reducing bias when estimating treatment effects in finite-sample situations through Monte Carlo simulations. King and Nielsen (2019. “Why Propensity Scores Should Not Be Used for Matching.” Political Analysis 27 (4): 435–54) argue that pruning observations based on PSM with 1-to-1 greedy matching can worsen rather than improve covariate balance and can increase the bias in the estimates of treatment effects. In our simulations, we observed this phenomenon not only in PSM with 1-to-1 greedy matching but also in other covariate balancing techniques that King and Nielsen (2019. “Why Propensity Scores Should Not Be Used for Matching.” Political Analysis 27 (4): 435–54) recommend as better matching methods, i.e. Mahalanobis distance matching (MDM) and coarsened exact matching (CEM). Regardless of the weighting/matching techniques and the data generation processes in this study, our findings indicate that matching and weighting under extreme caliper or cut-point settings does not improve covariate balance. In addition, once a substantially improved covariate balance is achieved in a given sample, the estimated bias tends to worsen slightly as the covariate balance continues to improve. Moreover, our simulation results suggest that OLS with proper covariates reduces selection bias as well as other weighting and matching methods. The results suggest that when analyzing observational data, it is important to avoid looking for a one-size-fits-all estimator and to identify the appropriate nonexperimental estimator carefully for the sample by thoroughly investigating the available data’s characteristics
Covariate · Econometrics · Estimator · Mahalanobis distance · Markov chain Monte Carlo · Matching (statistics · Monte Carlo method · Propensity score matching · Statistics · Weighting · Advanced Causal Inference Techniques · Computer Science · Mathematics · Medicine · Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference · Statistical Methods and Inference
Causal Inference for Statistics, Social, and Biomedical Sciences
Design of Observational Studies
Ebalance
Doubly Robust Estimation in Missing Data and Causal Inference Models
Does matching overcome LaLonde's critique of nonexperimental estimators?
Large Sample Properties of Matching Estimators for Average Treatment Effects
Multivariate Matching Methods That Are Monotonic Imbalance Bounding
Matching As An Econometric Evaluation Estimator
Alternative methods for evaluating the impact of interventions
Constructing Inverse Probability Weights for Marginal Structural Models
Efficient Estimation of Average Treatment Effects Using the Estimated Propensity Score
Cem
Using the Standardized Difference to Compare the Prevalence of a Binary Variable Between Two Groups in Observational Research
Causal Effects in Nonexperimental Studies
Some Practical Guidance for the Implementation of Propensity Score Matching
The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects
Matching As An Econometric Evaluation Estimator
Matching Methods for Causal Inference
Statistics and Causal Inference
Mostly Harmless Econometrics
Propensity Score-Matching Methods for Nonexperimental Causal Studies
New Evidence on the Finite Sample Properties of Propensity Score Reweighting and Matching Estimators
Finite-Sample Properties of Propensity-Score Matching and Weighting Estimators
Propensity Score Analysis
A Cautionary Note on the Use of Matching to Estimate Causal Effects
Entropy Balancing for Causal Effects
Comparing Experimental and Matching Methods Using a Large-Scale Voter Mobilization Experiment
Why Propensity Scores Should Not Be Used for Matching
Matching as Nonparametric Preprocessing for Reducing Model Dependence in Parametric Causal Inference
| Highly cited | No |
|---|