Propensity score analysis: promise, reality and irrational exuberance

Propensity score analysis: promise, reality and irrational exuberance
复制标题

倾向得分分析:承诺、现实与非理性繁荣

DOI:
--
复制
发表时间:
2012
影响因子:
3
通讯作者:
W. Shadish
W. Shadish
中科院分区:
法学2区
文献类型:
--
作者:
W. Shadish

文献摘要

参考文献

被引文献

相似文献

这项工作的目的是检验倾向得分在非随机实验中可以产生准确效果估计的前景,回顾实现这一前景所需条件的现实研究,并警告人们不要对其实现这一前景的能力产生非理性繁荣。对选定的实验工作的回顾,说明了倾向得分分析的前景和现实。非随机实验的倾向得分分析可以得到与随机实验相同的结果。这些估计取决于满足强可忽略性假设,即现有协变量可以很好地描述选择过程,并取决于使用来自同一地点的具有非常相似焦点特征的比较组。当这些假设不满足时,倾向评分可能无法产生准确的估计。倾向得分分析的使用呈指数级增长,特别是在过去十年中,但在实践中对其假设的仔细关注似乎非常罕见。依赖这些广泛的倾向评分应用的研究人员和政策制定者可能使用的证据在很大程度上是未知的有效性。所有利益相关者都应该投入更多的经验关注来证明每项研究都符合这些假设。
The aim of this work is to examine the promise that propensity scores can yield accurate effect estimates in nonrandomized experiments, review research on the realities of the conditions needed to meet this promise, and caution against irrational exuberance about their capacity to meet this promise. A review of selected experimental work that illustrates both the promise and realities of propensity score analysis. Propensity score analysis of nonrandomized experiments can yield the same results as randomized experiments. Those estimates depend on meeting the strong ignorability assumption that the available covariates well describe selection processes and on use of comparison groups that are from the same location with very similar focal characteristics. When those assumptions are not met, propensity scores may not yield accurate estimates. The use of propensity score analysis has proliferated exponentially, especially in the last decade, but careful attention to its assumptions seems to be very rare in practice. Researchers and policymakers who rely on these extensive propensity score applications may be using evidence of largely unknown validity. All stakeholders should devote far more empirical attention to justifying that each study has met these assumptions.
DOI: 10.1198/016214508000000733
发表时间: 2008-12-01
影响因子: 3.7
作者:
Shadish, William R.;Clark, M. H.;Steiner, Peter M.
通讯作者: Steiner, Peter M.
DOI: 10.1037/a0027571
发表时间: 2012-08
影响因子: 4.9
作者:
Moser, Stephanie E.;West, Stephen G.;Hughes, Jan N.
通讯作者: Hughes, Jan N.