The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Model-Based Direct Adjustment
Abstract
Direct adjustment or standardization applies population weights to subclass means in an effort to estimate population quantities from a sample that is not representative of the population. Direct adjustment has several attractive features, but when there are many subclasses it can attach large weights to small quantities of data, often in a fairly erratic manner. In the extreme, direct adjustment can attach infinite weight to nonexistent data, a noticeable inconvenience in practice. This article proposes a method of model-based direct adjustment that preserves the attractive features of conventional direct adjustment while stabilizing the weights attached to small subclasses. The sample mean and conventional direct adjustment are both special cases of model-based direct adjustment under two different extreme models for the subclass-specific selection probabilities. The discussion of this method provides some insights into the behavior of true and estimated propensity scores: the estimated scores are better than the true ones for almost the same reason that direct adjustment can outperform the sample mean in a simple random sample. The method is applied to a nonrandom sample in an effort to estimate a discrete distribution of essay scores in the College Board's Advanced Placement Examination in Biology.
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
Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions
Fleiss, J. L., Levin, B., & Paik, M. C. (2003) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/0471445428 · Cited by 18,646
The Effectiveness of Adjustment by Subclassification in Removing Bias in Observational Studies
Cochran, W. G. (1968) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2528036 · Cited by 961
Cited by
Austin, P. C. (2011) · Multivariate Behavioral Research · doi:10.1080/00273171.2011.568786 · Cited by 12,242
Marginal Structural Models and Causal Inference in Epidemiology
Robins, J. M., Hernán, M. Á., & Brumback, B. (2000) · Epidemiology · doi:10.1097/00001648-200009000-00011 · Cited by 5,581
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
Austin, P. C., & Stuart, E. A. (2015) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.6607 · Cited by 4,495
Variable Selection for Propensity Score Models
Brookhart, M. A., Schneeweiss, S., Rothman, K. J., Glynn, R. J., Avorn, J., & Stürmer, T. (2006) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/aje/kwj149 · Cited by 2,336
Metadata
- Authors
- Rosenbaum, P. R.
- Venue
- Journal of the American Statistical Association
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1987-06
- Volume
- 82
- Issue
- 398
- Pages
- 387-394
- ISSN
- 0162-1459 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-274X
- OpenAlex
- W2034806082
- Cited by
- 997
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 1.89
- Type
- journal article
- 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: Model-Based Direct Adjustment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/01621459.1987.10478441
- The paper
- Rosenbaum, P. R. (1987). Model-Based Direct Adjustment. Journal of the American Statistical Association. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1987.10478441
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.