The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Some Practical Issues in the Evaluation of Heterogeneous Labour Market Programmes by Matching Methods
Abstract
Summary: Recently several studies have analysed active labour market policies by using a recently proposed matching estimator for multiple programmes. Since there is only very limited practical experience with this estimator, this paper checks its sensitivity with respect to issues that are of practical importance in this kind of evaluation study. The estimator turns out to be fairly robust to several features that concern its implementation. Furthermore, the paper demonstrates that the matching approach per se is no panacea for solving all the problems of evaluation studies, but that its success depends critically on the information that is available in the data. Finally, a comparison with a bootstrap distribution provides some justification for using a simplified approximation of the distribution of the estimator that ignores its sequential nature.
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
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
Statistics and Causal Inference
Holland, P. W. (1986) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1986.10478354 · Cited by 5,293
Does matching overcome lalonde’s critique of nonexperimental estimators?
A. Smith, J., & E. Todd, P. (2005) · Journal of Econometrics · doi:10.1016/j.jeconom.2004.04.011 · Cited by 3,176
Characterizing Selection Bias Using Experimental Data
Heckman, J., Ichimura, H., Smith, J., & Todd, P. (1998) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/2999630 · Cited by 2,286
Empirical Strategies in Labor Economics
Angrist, J. D., & Krueger, A. B. (1999) · Handbook of Labor Economics · doi:10.1016/s1573-4463(99)03004-7 · Cited by 1,628
Cited by
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
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
Does matching overcome lalonde’s critique of nonexperimental estimators?
A. Smith, J., & E. Todd, P. (2005) · Journal of Econometrics · doi:10.1016/j.jeconom.2004.04.011 · Cited by 3,176
Bias-Corrected Matching Estimators for Average Treatment Effects
Abadie, A., & Imbens, G. W. (2011) · Journal of Business & Economic Statistics · doi:10.1198/jbes.2009.07333 · Cited by 1,416
Metadata
- Authors
- Lechner, M.
- Venue
- Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2002-02-01
- Volume
- 165
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 59-82
- ISSN
- 0964-1998 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-985X
- OpenAlex
- W2104405605
- Cited by
- 369
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 13.68
- 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: Some Practical Issues in the Evaluation of Heterogeneous Labour Market Programmes by Matching Methods. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/1467-985x.0asp2
- The paper
- Lechner, M. (2002). Some Practical Issues in the Evaluation of Heterogeneous Labour Market Programmes by Matching Methods. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-985x.0asp2
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.
