Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T12:29:25.405Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

16 - Characterizing the Effect of Matching Using Linear Propensity Score Methods with Normal Distributions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

Donald B. Rubin
Affiliation:
Harvard University, Massachusetts
Neal Thomas
Affiliation:
Statistical Research and Consulting Center
Get access

Summary

Abstract: Matched sampling is a standard technique for controlling bias in observational studies due to specific covariates. Since Rosenbaum & Rubin (1983a), multivariate matching methods based on estimated propensity scores have been used with increasing frequency in medical, educational, and sociological applications. We obtain analytic expressions for the effect of matching using linear propensity score methods with normal distributions. These expressions cover cases where the propensity score is either known, or estimated using either discriminant analysis or logistic regression, as is typically done in current practice. The results show that matching using estimated propensity scores not only reduces bias along the population propensity score, but also controls variation of components orthogonal to it. Matching on estimated rather than population propensity scores can therefore lead to relatively large variance reduction, as much as a factor of two in common matching settings where close matches are possible. Approximations are given for the magnitude of this variance reduction, which can be computed using estimates obtained from the matching pools. Related expressions for bias reduction are also presented which suggest that, in difficult matching situations, the use of population scores leads to greater bias reduction than the use of estimated scores.

INTRODUCTION

Matched Sampling

Matched sampling refers to an important class of applied statistical procedures designed to control bias in observational studies (Cochran & Rubin, 1973; Rubin, 1973a, b; McKinlay, 1977; Carpenter, 1977; Rosenbaum & Rubin, 1985a; Kane, 1991).

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×