Affinely invariant matching methods with discriminant mixtures of proportional ellipsoidally symmetric distributions

Annals of Statistics

Volumn 34, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 1814-1826

  Rubin, Donald B ^a,c   Stuart, Elizabeth A ^b,d  

^a HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

Causal inference; Equal percent bias reducing (EPBR); Matched sampling; Propensity scores

Indexed keywords

EID: 33845325483     PISSN: 00905364     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1214/009053606000000407     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. CHRISTAKIS, N. A. and IWASHYNA, T. J. (2003). The health impact of health care on families: A matched cohort study of hospice use by decedents and mortality outcomes in surviving, widowed spouses. Social Science and Medicine 57 465-475.
2. COCHRAN, W. G. (1968). The effectiveness of adjustment by subclassification in removing bias in observational studies. Biometrics 24 295-313. MR0228136
3. COCHRAN, W. G. and RUBIN, D. B. (1973). Controlling bias in observational studies: A review. Sankhya Ser. A 35 417-446.
4. DEHEJIA, R. H. and WAHBA, S. (1999). Causal effects in nonexperimental studies: Reevaluating the evaluation of training programs. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 94 1053-1062.
5. DEMPSTER, A. P. (1969). Elements of Continuous Multivariate Analysis. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
6. EFRON, B. (1975). The efficiency of logistic regression compared to normal discriminant analysis. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 70 892-898. MR0391403
7. GERFIN, M. and LECHNER, M. (2002). A microeconometric evaluation of the active labour market policy in Switzerland. The Economic Journal 112 854-893.
8. HILL, J., RUBIN, D. B. and THOMAS, N. (2000). The design of the New York School Choice Scholarship Program evaluation. In Research Design: Donald Campbell's Legacy (L. Bickman, ed.) 155-180. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
9. IMAI, K. (2005). Do get-out-the-vote calls reduce turnout? The importance of statistical methods for field experiments. American Political Science Review 99 283-300.
10. IMBENS, G. W. (2004). Nonparametric estimation of average treatment effects under exogeneity: A review. Rev. Econom. Statist. 86 4-29.
11. ROSENBAUM, P. R. (2002). Observational Studies, 2nd ed. Springer, New York. MR1899138
12. ROSENBAUM, P. R. and RUBIN, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70 41-55. MR0742974
13. ROSENBAUM, P. R. and RUBIN, D. B. (1985). Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. Amer. Statist. 39 33-38.
14. RUBIN, D. B. (1976). Multivariate matching methods that are equal percent bias reducing. I. Some examples. Biometrics 32 109-120. MR0400555
15. RUBIN, D. B. (2001). Using propensity scores to help design observational studies: Application to the tobacco litigation. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology 2 169-188.
16. RUBIN, D. B. and THOMAS, N. (1992). Affinely invariant matching methods with ellipsoidal distributions. Ann. Statist. 20 1079-1093. MR1165607
17. RUBIN, D. B. and THOMAS, N. (1992). Characterizing the effect of matching using linear propensity score methods with normal distributions. Biometrika 79 797-809. MR 1209479
18. RUBIN, D. B. and THOMAS, N. (1996). Matching using estimated propensity scores: Relating theory to practice. Biometrics 52 249-264.
19. RUBIN, D. B. and THOMAS, N. (2000). Combining propensity score matching with additional adjustments for prognostic covariates. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 95 573-585.
20. SMITH, H. (1997). Matching with multiple controls to estimate treatment effects in observational studies. Sociological Methodology 27 325-353.
21. SMITH, J. and TODD, P. (2005). Does matching overcome LaLonde's critique of nonexperimental estimators? J. Econometrics 125 305-353. MR2143379