The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Role of a Second Control Group in an Observational Study
Open accessAbstract
An observational study is an attempt to estimate the effects of a treatment when subjects are not randomly assigned to treatment or control. The possibility of using more than one control group has often been briefly mentioned in general discussions of observational studies, and many observational studies have used two control groups. Here, the limited and dispersed literature on this subject is reviewed, and the topic is developed in several directions by using a formal notation for observational studies. The value of a second control group depends on the supplementary information that is available about unobserved biases that are suspected to exist. A second control group provides a test of the assumption that conventional adjustments for observed covariates suffice in estimating treatment effects. Under the best of circumstances, this test is consistent and unbiased, and its power exceeds the probability of falsely detecting a treatment effect. Indeed, under the best of circumstances, two control groups can yield consistent and unbiased estimates of bounds on the treatment effect when conventional adjustments fail. In contrast, however, in the worst of circumstances, a second control group can be of little value.
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
Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies
Rubin, D. B. (1974) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0037350 · Cited by 9,436
Statistics and Causal Inference
Holland, P. W. (1986) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1986.10478354 · Cited by 5,293
Fisher, R. A. (1936) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.1.3923.554-a · Cited by 4,980
Randomization Analysis of Experimental Data: The Fisher Randomization Test Comment
Rubin, D. B. (1980) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2287653 · Cited by 1,368
Cited by
Austin, P. C. (2011) · Multivariate Behavioral Research · doi:10.1080/00273171.2011.568786 · Cited by 12,242
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
Recent Developments in the Econometrics of Program Evaluation
Imbens, G. W., & Wooldridge, J. M. (2009) · Journal of Economic Literature · doi:10.1257/jel.47.1.5 · Cited by 4,926
Nonparametric Estimation of Average Treatment Effects Under Exogeneity: A Review
Imbens, G. W. (2004) · Review of Economics and Statistics · doi:10.1162/003465304323023651 · Cited by 2,994
Endogeneity in Empirical Corporate Finance1
Roberts, M. R., & Whited, T. M. (2013) · Handbook of the Economics of Finance · doi:10.1016/b978-0-44-453594-8.00007-0 · Cited by 2,459
Metadata
- Authors
- Rosenbaum, P. R.
- Venue
- Statistical Science
- Publisher
- Institute of Mathematical Statistics
- Published
- 1987-08-01
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 3
- ISSN
- 0883-4237 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2052513269
- Cited by
- 195
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 3.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: The Role of a Second Control Group in an Observational Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1214/ss/1177013232
- The paper
- Rosenbaum, P. R. (1987). The Role of a Second Control Group in an Observational Study. Statistical Science. https://doi.org/10.1214/ss/1177013232
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.