Cited by 50Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesEvaluation and Performance AssessmentStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials

Combining the regression discontinuity design and propensity score‐based weighting to improve causal inference in program evaluation

Open access
Linden, Ariel, Adams, John L.·2012·Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice

Abstract

The regression discontinuity (RD) design is considered to be the closest to a randomized trial that can be applied in non‐experimental settings. The design relies on a cut‐off point on a continuous baseline variable to assign individuals to treatment. The individuals just to the right and left of the cut‐off are assumed to be exchangeable – as in a randomized trial. Any observed discontinuity in the relationship between the assignment variable and outcome is therefore considered evidence of a treatment effect. In this paper, we describe key advances in the RD design over the past decade and illustrate their implementation using data from a health management intervention. We then introduce the propensity score‐based weighting technique as a complement to the RD design to correct for imbalances in baseline characteristics between treated and non‐treated groups that may bias RD results. We find that the weighting strategy outperforms standard regression covariate adjustment in the present data. One clear advantage of the weighting technique over regression covariate adjustment is that we can directly inspect the degree to which balance was achieved. Because of its relative simplicity and tremendous utility, the RD design (either alone or combined with propensity score weighting adjustment) should be considered as an alternative approach to evaluate health management program effectiveness when using observational data.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2011.01768.x

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. American Diabetes Association (2003) Economic costs of diabetes in the US in 2002. Diabetes Care, 26 (3), 917-932.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Linden, A., & Adams, J. L.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • RAND Corporation (US)
Corresponding author
Linden, Ariel
Venue
Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-02-05
Volume
18
Issue
2
Pages
317-325
ISSN
  • 1356-1294 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2753
OpenAlex
W1910000333
Cited by
50
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1
FWCI
1.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Keywords
regression discontinuity design, propensity score weighting, causal inference, program evaluation, observational data, treatment effect estimation
MeSH terms
Female, Health Services Research, Humans, Male, Regression Analysis, Research Design, Reproducibility of Results, Program Evaluation, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Risk Assessment, Patient-Centered Care, Disease Management, 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