The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Matching to Remove Bias in Observational Studies
Abstract
: Several matching methods that match all of one sample from another larger sample on a continuous matching variable are compared with respect to their ability to remove the bias of the matching variable. One method is a simple mean-matching method and three are nearest available pair-matching methods. The methods' abilities to remove bias are also compared with the theoretical maximum given fixed distributions and fixed sample sizes. A summary of advice to an investigator is included. INTRODUCTION Matched sampling is a method of data collection and organization designed to reduce bias and increase precision in observational studies, i.e., in those studies in which the random assignment of treatments to units (subjects) is absent. Although there are examples of observational studies which could have been conducted as properly randomized experiments, in many other cases the investigator could not randomly assign treatments to subjects. For example, consider the Kihlberg and Robinson [1968] study comparing severity of injury in automobile accidents for motorists using and not using seatbelts. One would not want to randomly assign subjects to “seatbelt” and “no seatbelt” treatments and then have them collide at varying speeds, angles of impact, etc. Neither, however, would one want to simply compare the severity of injury in “random” samples of motorists in accidents using and not using seatbelts; important variables such as “speed of automobile at time of accident” may be differently distributed in the two groups (i.e., seatbelted motorists are generally more cautious and therefore tend to drive more slowly).
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Effectiveness of Adjustment by Subclassification in Removing Bias in Observational Studies
Cochran, W. G. (1968) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2528036 · Cited by 961
Statistical procedures and their mathematical bases.
Peters, C. C., & Van Voorhis, W. R. (1940) · McGraw-Hill Book Company · doi:10.1037/13596-000 · Cited by 621
Contributions to Order Statistics.
Plackett, R. L., Sarhan, A. E., & Greenberg, B. G. (1963) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General) · doi:10.2307/2982375 · Cited by 440
Expected values of normal order statistics
HARTER, H. L. (1961) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/48.1-2.151 · Cited by 353
Experimental Designs in Sociological Research.
Kempthorne, O., & Chapin, F. S. (1948) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2280283 · Cited by 114
Matching in Analytical Studies
Cochran, W. G. (1953) · American Journal of Public Health and the Nations Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.43.6_pt_1.684 · Cited by 109
A Technique for Studying the Effects of a Television Broadcast
Belson, W. A. (1956) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C (Applied Statistics) · doi:10.2307/2985420 · Cited by 83
The Computerized Construction of a Matched Sample
Althauser, R., & Rubin, D. (1970) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/224936 · Cited by 80
The Efficiency of Matched Samples: An Empirical Investigation
Billewicz, W. Z. (1965) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2528546 · Cited by 77
Experimental Sociology: A Study in Method.
Kendall, P. L., & Greenwood, E. (1945) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2085603 · Cited by 50
Cited by
The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects
ROSENBAUM, P. R., & RUBIN, D. B. (1983) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/70.1.41 · Cited by 31,241
Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion
Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J.-S. (2009) · doi:10.1515/9781400829828 · Cited by 9,467
Matching Methods for Causal Inference: A Review and a Look Forward
Stuart, E. A. (2010) · Statistical Science · doi:10.1214/09-sts313 · Cited by 5,478
Recent Developments in the Econometrics of Program Evaluation
Imbens, G. W., & Wooldridge, J. M. (2009) · Journal of Economic Literature · doi:10.1257/jel.47.1.5 · Cited by 4,926
Propensity Score-Matching Methods for Nonexperimental Causal Studies
Dehejia, R. H., & Wahba, S. (2002) · Review of Economics and Statistics · doi:10.1162/003465302317331982 · Cited by 4,846
Metadata
- Venue
- Matched Sampling for Causal Effects
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press
- Published
- 2006-09-04
- Pages
- 62-80
- OpenAlex
- W2095334503
- Cited by
- 600
- References
- 10
- FWCI
- 84.93
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Matching to Remove Bias in Observational Studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/cbo9780511810725.007
- The paper
- Matching to Remove Bias in Observational Studies. (2006). Matched Sampling for Causal Effects. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511810725.007
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.