首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America >Sources of selection bias in evaluating social programs: An interpretation of conventional measures and evidence on the effectiveness of matching as a program evaluation method
【2h】

Sources of selection bias in evaluating social programs: An interpretation of conventional measures and evidence on the effectiveness of matching as a program evaluation method

机译:评估社会项目时选择偏见的来源: 常规措施的解释和证据 匹配作为程序评估方法的有效性:方法

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

This paper decomposes the conventional measure of selection bias in observational studies into three components. The first two components are due to differences in the distributions of characteristics between participant and nonparticipant (comparison) group members: the first arises from differences in the supports, and the second from differences in densities over the region of common support. The third component arises from selection bias precisely defined. Using data from a recent social experiment, we find that the component due to selection bias, precisely defined, is smaller than the first two components. However, selection bias still represents a substantial fraction of the experimental impact estimate. The empirical performance of matching methods of program evaluation is also examined. We find that matching based on the propensity score eliminates some but not all of the measured selection bias, with the remaining bias still a substantial fraction of the estimated impact. We find that the support of the distribution of propensity scores for the comparison group is typically only a small portion of the support for the participant group. For values outside the common support, it is impossible to reliably estimate the effect of program participation using matching methods. If the impact of participation depends on the propensity score, as we find in our data, the failure of the common support condition severely limits matching compared with random assignment as an evaluation estimator.
机译:本文将观察研究中选择偏见的常规度量分解为三个部分。前两个成分是由于参与者和非参与者(比较)组成员之间的特征分布不同而引起的:第一个成分来自支持的差异,第二个成分来自于共同支持区域的密度差异。第三部分来自精确定义的选择偏差。使用来自最近的社会实验的数据,我们发现由于精确定义的选择偏差所导致的因素要小于前两个因素。但是,选择偏差仍占实验影响估算的很大一部分。还检查了程序评估匹配方法的经验性能。我们发现,基于倾向得分的匹配消除了部分但并非全部测得的选择偏差,而其余偏差仍然是估计影响的很大一部分。我们发现,比较组倾向得分分布的支持通常只是参与者组支持的一小部分。对于 共同支持之外的价值观,不可能可靠地 使用匹配方法估算计划参与的效果。如果 我们发现参与的影响取决于倾向得分 在我们的数据中,共同支持条件的严重失败 极限匹配与随机分配相比作为评估 估算器。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号