Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

A comparison of two methods of estimating propensity scores after multiple imputation

By R. Mitra and J.P. Reiter


In many observational studies, analysts estimate treatment effects using propensity scores, e.g. by matching or sub-classifying on the scores. When some values of the covariates are missing, analysts can use multiple imputation to fill in the missing data, estimate propensity scores based on the m completed datasets, and use the propensity scores to estimate treatment effects. We compare two approaches to implement this process. In the first, the analyst estimates the treatment effect using propensity score matching within each completed data set, and averages the m treatment effect estimates. In the second approach, the analyst averages the m propensity scores for each record across the completed datasets, and performs propensity score matching with these averaged scores to estimate the treatment effect. We compare properties of both methods via simulation studies using artificial and real data. The simulations suggest that the second method has greater potential to produce substantial bias reductions than the first, particularly when the missing values are predictive of treatment assignment

Topics: HA
OAI identifier:
Provided by: e-Prints Soton

Suggested articles


  1. An Analysis of Transformations.
  2. (2007). Classifying Radiographic Progression Status in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients Using Propensity Scores to Adjust for Baseline Dierences. Statistical Methods in Medical Research. doi
  3. (2007). Combining Propensity Score Matching and Group-Based Trajectory Analysis in an Observational Study. Psychological Methods. doi
  4. (1985). Constructing a Control Group Using Multivariate Matched Sampling Methods That Incorporate the Propensity Score. The American Statistician. doi
  5. Ecient Sampling Approaches to Address Confounding in Database Studies. doi
  6. (2008). Estimation of Propensity Scores Using Generalized Additive Models. Statistics in Medicine. doi
  7. (2008). Evaluating uses of data mining techniques in propensity score estimation: a simulation study. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety. doi
  8. Full Breastfeeding Duration and Associated Decrease in Respiratory Tract Infection in US Children. doi
  9. (2010). Latent class mixture models to impute missing covariates in observational studies;
  10. (1987). Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. doi
  11. (2009). Propensity Score Estimation with Missing Values Using a Multiple Imputation Missingness Pattern (MIMP) Approach. Statistics in Medicine. doi
  12. Propensity score estimation: neural networks, support vector machines, decision trees (CART), and meta-classi as alternatives to logistic regression. doi
  13. (1998). Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Statistics in Medicine. doi
  14. Propensity Score Modeling Strategies for the Causal Analysis of Observational Data. Biostatistics (Oxford). 2002;3(2):179{193. 17[6] Rosenbaum PR. A characterization of optimal designs for observational studies. doi
  15. Reducing Bias in Observational Studies Using Subclassi on the Propensity Score. doi
  16. Reducing bias in treatment eect estimation in observational studies suering from missing data.
  17. (1992). Regression with Missing X's: A Review. doi
  18. (2004). Strati and Weighting Via the Propensity Score in Estimation of Causal Treatment Eects: A Comparative Study. Statistics in Medicine. doi
  19. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal eects. doi
  20. (2008). Using full matching to estimate causal eects in nonexperimental studies: Examining the relationship between adolescent marijuana use and adult outcomes. Developmental Psychology. doi
  21. Using the outcome for imputation of missing predictor values was preferred. doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.