Cited by 26Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesOptimal Experimental Design MethodsStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials

Optimal multilevel matching using network flows: An application to a summer reading intervention

Open access
Pimentel, Samuel D., Page, Lindsay C., Lenard, Matthew, Keele, Luke·2018·The Annals of Applied Statistics

Abstract

Many observational studies of causal effects occur in settings with clustered treatment assignment. In studies of this type, treatment is applied to entire clusters of units. For example, an educational intervention might be administered to all the students in a school. We develop a matching algorithm for multilevel data based on a network flow algorithm. Earlier work on multilevel matching relied on integer programming, which allows for balance targeting on specific covariates but can be slow with larger data sets. Although we cannot directly specify minimal levels of balance for individual covariates, our algorithm is fast and scales easily to larger data sets. We apply this algorithm to assess a school-based intervention through which students in treated schools were exposed to a new reading program during summer school. In one variant of the algorithm, where we match both schools and students, we change the causal estimand through optimal subset matching to better maintain common support. In a second variant, we relax the common support assumption to preserve the causal estimand by only matching on schools. We find that the summer intervention does not appear to increase reading test scores. In a sensitivity analysis, however, we determine that an unobserved confounder could easily mask a larger treatment effect.

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 · 10.1214/17-aoas1118

Cites

1 of 1 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

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: 5

  1. BARNOW, B. S., CAIN, G. G. and GOLDBERGER, A. S. (1980). Issues in the analysis of selectivity bias. In Evaluation Studies (E. Stromsdorfer and G. Farkas, eds.) 5 43-59. Sage, San Francisco, CA.
  2. COOPER, H., NYE, B., CHARLTON, K., LINDSAY, J. and GREATHOUSE, S. (1996). The effects of summer vacation on achievement test scores: A narrative and meta-analytic review. Rev. Educ. Res. 66 227-268.
  3. COOPER, H., CHARLTON, K., VALENTINE, J. C., MUHLENBRUCK, L. and BORMAN, G. D. (2000). Making the most of summer school: A meta-analytic and narrative review. Monogr. Soc. Res. Child Dev. 65 1-127.
  4. LEHMANN, E. L. and ROMANO, J. P. (2005). Testing Statistical Hypotheses, 3rd ed. Springer, New York.
  5. ROSENBAUM, P. R. (2002). Observational Studies, 2nd ed. Springer, New York.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pimentel, S. D., Page, L. C., Lenard, M., & Keele, L.
Affiliations
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • Georgetown University (US)
Venue
The Annals of Applied Statistics
Published
2018-09-01
Volume
12
Issue
3
Pages
1479-1505
ISSN
  • 1932-6157 (ISSN-L)
  • 1941-7330
OpenAlex
W2890477461
Cited by
26
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1
FWCI
2.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Annals of Applied Statistics (publishedVersion)
  • Project Euclid (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Optimal Experimental Design Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Keywords
network flow algorithms, school-based intervention, summer reading programs, causal inference, common support, covariate balance, integer programming, unmeasured confounding, reading scores

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