Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 4,846

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Propensity Score-Matching Methods for Nonexperimental Causal Studies

Dehejia, Rajeev H., Wahba, Sadek·2002·Review of Economics and Statistics
DOI 10.1162/003465302317331982
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This paper considers causal inference and sample selection bias in nonexperimental settings in which (i) few units in the nonexperimental comparison group are comparable to the treatment units, and (ii) selecting a subset of comparison units similar to the treatment units is difficult because units must be compared across a high-dimensional set of pre-treatment characteristics. We discuss the use of propensity score-matching methods, and implement them using data from the National Supported Work experiment. Following LaLonde (1986), we pair the experimental treated units with nonexperimental comparison units from the CPS and PSID, and compare the estimates of the treatment effect obtained using our methods to the benchmark results from the experiment. For both comparison groups, we show that the methods succeed in focusing attention on the small subset of the comparison units comparable to the treated units and, hence, in alleviating the bias due to systematic differences between the treated and comparison units.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1162/003465302317331982

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Show all 8 references

Research works printed but not linked: 17

  1. 10.2307/145901 · DOI
  2. Cochran W. G., 1973, Sankhya, ser. A, 35, 417
  3. 10.2307/1391671 · DOI
  4. 10.2307/2669919 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.2307/145902 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Friedlander Daniel, 1997, Journal of Economic Literature, 35, 1809
  7. 10.1073/pnas.93.23.13416 · DOI
  8. 10.2307/2971733 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 10.1111/1467-937X.00044 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 10.2307/2289064 · DOI · Paper page
  11. LaLonde Robert, 1986, American Economic Review, 76, 604
  12. 10.1080/03610928308828546 · DOI
  13. 10.1093/biomet/70.1.41 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.2307/2683903 · DOI · Paper page
  15. 10.2307/2530647 · DOI · Paper page
  16. 10.2307/1164933 · DOI · Paper page
  17. 10.2307/2289065 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Dehejia, R. H., & Wahba, S.
Venue
Review of Economics and Statistics
Publisher
MIT Press - Journals
Published
2002-02
Volume
84
Issue
1
Pages
151-161
ISSN
  • 0034-6535 (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-9142
DOI
10.1162/003465302317331982
OpenAlex
W3123974754
Cited by
4,846
References
8
FWCI
57.94
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

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.