Cited by 490Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 54 of the 55 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The importance of covariate selection in controlling for selection bias in observational studies.

Abstract

The assumption of strongly ignorable treatment assignment is required for eliminating selection bias in observational studies. To meet this assumption, researchers often rely on a strategy of selecting covariates that they think will control for selection bias. Theory indicates that the most important covariates are those highly correlated with both the real selection process and the potential outcomes. However, when planning a study, it is rarely possible to identify such covariates with certainty. In this article, we report on an extensive reanalysis of a within-study comparison that contrasts a randomized experiment and a quasi-experiment. Various covariate sets were used to adjust for initial group differences in the quasi-experiment that was characterized by self-selection into treatment. The adjusted effect sizes were then compared with the experimental ones to identify which individual covariates, and which conceptually grouped sets of covariates, were responsible for the high degree of bias reduction achieved in the adjusted quasi-experiment. Such results provide strong clues about preferred strategies for identifying the covariates most likely to reduce bias when planning a study and when the true selection process is not known.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0018719

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 55 references

1 of the 55 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 483

Metadata

Authors
Steiner, P. M., Cook, T. D., Shadish, W. R., & Clark, M. H.
Affiliations
Northwestern University (US)
Venue
Psychological Methods
Published
2010
Volume
15
Issue
3
Pages
250-267
ISSN
  • 1082-989X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1463
OpenAlex
W2168206775
Cited by
490
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 53 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 37 · 2017: 36 · 2016: 38 · 2015: 28 · 2014: 31 · 2013: 32 · 2012: 19
FWCI
18.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Methods (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
US Department of Education (R305U070003)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Keywords
covariate selection, selection bias, observational studies, quasi-experiments, self-selection, randomized experiments, bias mitigation
MeSH terms
Data Interpretation, Statistical, Epidemiologic Methods, Humans, Mathematics, Random Allocation, Models, Statistical, Selection Bias, Causality, Patient Selection, Behavioral Research, Propensity Score

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