The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Causal Inference With General Treatment Regimes: Generalizing the Propensity Score
Abstract
In this article we develop the theoretical properties of the propensity function, which is a generalization of the propensity score of Rosenbaum and Rubin. Methods based on the propensity score have long been used for causal inference in observational studies; they are easy to use and can effectively reduce the bias caused by nonrandom treatment assignment. Although treatment regimes need not be binary in practice, the propensity score methods are generally confined to binary treatment scenarios. Two possible exceptions have been suggested for ordinal and categorical treatments. In this article we develop theory and methods that encompass all of these techniques and widen their applicability by allowing for arbitrary treatment regimes. We illustrate our propensity function methods by applying them to two datasets; we estimate the effect of smoking on medical expenditure and the effect of schooling on wages. We also conduct simulation studies to investigate the performance of our methods.
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
Instrumental Variables Regression with Weak Instruments
Staiger, D., & Stock, J. (1994) · doi:10.3386/t0151 · Cited by 5,302 · cited 1×
“Thus improving the performance of IV estimation has been a focus of much recent literature (e.g., Angrist and Krueger 1995; Staiger and Stock 1997; Angrist, Imbens, and Krueger 1999).”
MethodStatistics and Causal Inference
Holland, P. W. (1986) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1986.10478354 · Cited by 5,293
Comparison of Multivariate Matching Methods: Structures, Distances, and Algorithms
Gu, X. S., & Rosenbaum, P. R. (1993) · Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics · doi:10.1080/10618600.1993.10474623 · Cited by 702
Cited by
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
MatchIt : Nonparametric Preprocessing for Parametric Causal Inference
Ho, D. E., Imai, K., King, G., & Stuart, E. A. (2011) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v042.i08 · Cited by 4,385
Self-citationCausal Inference without Balance Checking: Coarsened Exact Matching
Iacus, S. M., King, G., & Porro, G. (2012) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mpr013 · Cited by 3,563
A tutorial on propensity score estimation for multiple treatments using generalized boosted models
McCaffrey, D. F., Griffin, B. A., Almirall, D., Slaughter, M. E., Ramchand, R., & Burgette, L. F. (2013) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.5753 · Cited by 1,450
Myopic Voters and Natural Disaster Policy
HEALY, A., & MALHOTRA, N. (2009) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055409990104 · Cited by 931
Metadata
- Authors
- Imai, K., & van Dyk, D. A.
- Venue
- Journal of the American Statistical Association
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2004-09
- Volume
- 99
- Issue
- 467
- Pages
- 854-866
- ISSN
- 0162-1459 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-274X
- OpenAlex
- W2111078766
- Cited by
- 868
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 13.45
- 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: Causal Inference With General Treatment Regimes: Generalizing the Propensity Score. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1198/016214504000001187
- The paper
- Imai, K., & van Dyk, D. A. (2004). Causal Inference With General Treatment Regimes: Generalizing the Propensity Score. Journal of the American Statistical Association. https://doi.org/10.1198/016214504000001187
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.