Cited by 6,238Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesEvaluation and Performance AssessmentSchool Choice and Performance

SOME PRACTICAL GUIDANCE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PROPENSITY SCORE MATCHING

Caliendo, Marco, Kopeinig, Sabine·2008·Journal of Economic Surveys

Abstract

Propensity score matching (PSM) has become a popular approach to estimate causal treatment effects. It is widely applied when evaluating labour market policies, but empirical examples can be found in very diverse fields of study. Once the researcher has decided to use PSM, he is confronted with a lot of questions regarding its implementation. To begin with, a first decision has to be made concerning the estimation of the propensity score. Following that one has to decide which matching algorithm to choose and determine the region of common support. Subsequently, the matching quality has to be assessed and treatment effects and their standard errors have to be estimated. Furthermore, questions like ‘what to do if there is choice‐based sampling?’ or ‘when to measure effects?’ can be important in empirical studies. Finally, one might also want to test the sensitivity of estimated treatment effects with respect to unobserved heterogeneity or failure of the common support condition. Each implementation step involves a lot of decisions and different approaches can be thought of. The aim of this paper is to discuss these implementation issues and give some guidance to researchers who want to use PSM for evaluation purposes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1467-6419.2007.00527.x

Cites

108 of 108 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 111 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Caliendo, M., & Kopeinig, S.
Affiliations
IZA - Institute of Labor Economics (DE)
Venue
Journal of Economic Surveys
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-01-31
Volume
22
Issue
1
Pages
31-72
ISSN
  • 0950-0804 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-6419
OpenAlex
W2159805452
Cited by
6,238
References
111
Citations by year
2026: 382 · 2025: 443 · 2024: 428 · 2023: 426 · 2022: 459 · 2021: 455 · 2020: 430 · 2019: 401 · 2018: 396 · 2017: 362 · 2016: 341 · 2015: 338 · 2014: 367 · 2013: 261 · 2012: 234
FWCI
143.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Economic Surveys (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
  • Social Sciences › Education › School Choice and Performance
Keywords
propensity score matching, causal treatment effects, common support, choice-based sampling, unobserved heterogeneity, sensitivity analysis, labour market policy evaluation

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