The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Causal Effects in Nonexperimental Studies: Reevaluating the Evaluation of Training Programs
Abstract
This article uses propensity score methods to estimate the treatment impact of the National Supported Work (NSW) Demonstration, a labor training program, on postintervention earnings. We use data from Lalonde's evaluation of nonexperimental methods that combine the treated units from a randomized evaluation of the NSW with nonexperimental comparison units drawn from survey datasets. We apply propensity score methods to this composite dataset and demonstrate that, relative to the estimators that Lalonde evaluates, propensity score estimates of the treatment impact are much closer to the experimental benchmark estimate. Propensity score methods assume that the variables associated with assignment to treatment are observed (referred to as ignorable treatment assignment, or selection on observables). Even under this assumption, it is difficult to control for differences between the treatment and comparison groups when they are dissimilar and when there are many preintervention variables. The estimated propensity score (the probability of assignment to treatment, conditional on preintervention variables) summarizes the preintervention variables. This offers a diagnostic on the comparability of the treatment and comparison groups, because one has only to compare the estimated propensity score across the two groups. We discuss several methods (such as stratification and matching) that use the propensity score to estimate the treatment impact. When the range of estimated propensity scores of the treatment and comparison groups overlap, these methods can estimate the treatment impact for the treatment group. A sensitivity analysis shows that our estimates are not sensitive to the specification of the estimated propensity score, but are sensitive to the assumption of selection on observables. We conclude that when the treatment and comparison groups overlap, and when the variables determining assignment to treatment are observed, these methods provide a means to estimate the treatment impact. Even though propensity score methods are not always applicable, they offer a diagnostic on the quality of nonexperimental comparison groups in terms of observable preintervention variables.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Citations
Cites
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
Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error
Heckman, J. J. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1912352 · Cited by 28,779
Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies
Rubin, D. B. (1974) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0037350 · Cited by 9,436
Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1985) · The American Statistician · doi:10.2307/2683903 · Cited by 6,472
Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator: Evidence from evaluating a job training programme
Heckman, J. J., Ichimura, H., & Todd, P. E. (1997) · The Review of Economic Studies · doi:10.2307/2971733 · Cited by 5,486
Statistics and Causal Inference
Holland, P. W. (1986) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1986.10478354 · Cited by 5,293
Fisher, R. A. (1936) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.1.3923.554-a · Cited by 4,980
Identification of Causal Effects Using Instrumental Variables
Angrist, J. D., Imbens, G. W., & Rubin, D. B. (1996) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1996.10476902 · Cited by 4,230
Matching As An Econometric Evaluation Estimator
Heckman, J. J., Ichimura, H., & Todd, P. (1998) · Review of Economic Studies · doi:10.1111/1467-937x.00044 · Cited by 3,807
Reducing Bias in Observational Studies Using Subclassification on the Propensity Score
Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1984) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1984.10478078 · Cited by 3,082
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- Angrist J., 1990, American Economic Review, 80, 313
- Dehejia R. H., 1998, “Matching Methods for Estimating Causal Effects in Non-Experimental Studies,”
- 10.1080/01621459.1989.10478848 · DOI
- Lalonde R., 1986, American Economic Review, 76, 604
- 1983, Summary and Findings of the National Supported Work Demonstration
- Rubin D., 1977, Journal of Educational Statistics, 2, 1
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion
Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J.-S. (2009) · doi:10.1515/9781400829828 · Cited by 9,467
SOME PRACTICAL GUIDANCE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PROPENSITY SCORE MATCHING
Caliendo, M., & Kopeinig, S. (2008) · Journal of Economic Surveys · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6419.2007.00527.x · Cited by 6,238
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
Unobservable Selection and Coefficient Stability: Theory and Evidence
Oster, E. (2019) · Journal of Business & Economic Statistics · doi:10.1080/07350015.2016.1227711 · Cited by 5,367
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
Metadata
- Authors
- Dehejia, R. H., & Wahba, S.
- Affiliations
- Columbia University (US)
- Morgan Stanley (United States) (US)
- ORCID
- Dehejia, Rajeev H.
- Venue
- Journal of the American Statistical Association
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1999-12
- Volume
- 94
- Issue
- 448
- Pages
- 1053-1062
- ISSN
- 0162-1459 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-274X
- OpenAlex
- W3122948292
- Cited by
- 2,395
- References
- 44
- Citations by year
- 2026: 43 · 2025: 56 · 2024: 66 · 2023: 80 · 2022: 97 · 2021: 110 · 2020: 103 · 2019: 98 · 2018: 126 · 2017: 119 · 2016: 122 · 2015: 130 · 2014: 141 · 2013: 116 · 2012: 120
- FWCI
- 43.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of the American Statistical Association (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
- Social Sciences › Public Administration › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
- Social Sciences › Education › School Choice and Performance
- Keywords
- propensity score methods, program evaluation, selection on observables, stratification, matching, sensitivity analysis, treatment effect estimation
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