CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 349Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesSpatial and Panel Data AnalysisQualitative Comparative Analysis Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Matching Methods for Causal Inference with Time‐Series Cross‐Sectional Data

Imai, Kosuke, Kim, In Song, Wang, Erik H.·2023·American Journal of Political Science
DOI 10.1111/ajps.12685
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Matching methods improve the validity of causal inference by reducing model dependence and offering intuitive diagnostics. Although they have become a part of the standard tool kit across disciplines, matching methods are rarely used when analysing time‐series cross‐sectional data. We fill this methodological gap. In the proposed approach, we first match each treated observation with control observations from other units in the same time period that have an identical treatment history up to the prespecified number of lags. We use standard matching and weighting methods to further refine this matched set so that the treated and matched control observations have similar covariate values. Assessing the quality of matches is done by examining covariate balance. Finally, we estimate both short‐term and long‐term average treatment effects using the difference‐in‐differences estimator, accounting for a time trend. We illustrate the proposed methodology through simulation and empirical studies. An open‐source software package is available for implementing the proposed methods.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/ajps.12685

Cites

44 of 44 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 44 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–300 of 349

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Imai, K., Kim, I. S., & Wang, E. H.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
  • Australian National University (AU)
Corresponding author
Imai, Kosuke
ORCID
Venue
American Journal of Political Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-12-11
Volume
67
Issue
3
Pages
587-605
ISSN
  • 0092-5853 (ISSN-L)
  • 1540-5907
DOI
10.1111/ajps.12685
OpenAlex
W4200386818
Cited by
349
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 63 · 2025: 79 · 2024: 80 · 2023: 68 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 13
FWCI
35.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
American Journal of Political Science (publishedVersion)
Funders
Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-17-EURE-0010)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Spatial and Panel Data Analysis
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Comparative Analysis Research
Keywords
matching methods, causal inference, time-series cross-sectional data, treatment effect estimation, covariate balance, difference-in-differences, average treatment effect, model dependence, treatment history

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