Causal Effects in Non-Experimental Studies: Re-Evaluating the Evaluation of Training Programs

This paper uses propensity score methods to address the question: how well can an observational study estimate the treatment impact of a program? Using data from Lalonde's (1986) influential evaluation of non-experimental methods, we demonstrate that propensity score methods succeed in estimating the treatment impact of the National Supported Work Demonstration. Propensity score methods reduce the task of controlling for differences in pre-intervention variables between the treatment and the non-experimental comparison groups to controlling for differences in the estimated propensity score (the probability of assignment to treatment, conditional on covariates). It is difficult to control for differences in pre-intervention variables when they are numerous and when the treatment and comparison groups are dissimilar, whereas controlling for the estimated propensity score, a single variable on the unit interval, is a straightforward task. We apply several methods, such as stratification on the propensity score and matching on the propensity score, and show that they result in accurate estimates of the treatment impact.

Application of the Generalized Propensity Score. Evaluation of public contributions to Piedmont enterprises.

In this article, we apply a generalization of the propensity score of Rosenbaum and Rubin (1983b). Techniques based on the propensity score have long been used for causal inference in observational studies for reducing bias caused by non-random treatment assignment. In last years, Joffe and Rosenbaum (1989) and Imbens and Hirano (2000) suggested two possible extensions to standard propensity score for ordinal and categorical treatments respectively. Propensity score techniques, allowing for continuous treatments effect evaluation, were, instead, recently proposed by Van Dick Imai (2003) and Imbens and Hirano (2004). We refer to Imbens' approach for the use of the generalized propensity score, to widen its application for continuous treatment regimes.

Propensity Score Matching with Limited Overlap

In this article, we have demostrated the application of two newly proposed estimators which accounts for lack of overlap under propensity score matching on a case study involing the analysis of health expenditure data for the United States.

Estimating Marginal Hazard Ratios by Simultaneously Using A Set of Propensity Score Models: A Multiply Robust Approach

The inverse probability weighted Cox model is frequently used to estimate marginal hazard ratios. Its validity requires a crucial condition that the propensity score model is correctly specified. To provide protection against misspecification of the propensity score model, we propose a weighted estimation method rooted in empirical likelihood theory. The proposed estimator is multiply robust in that it is guaranteed to be consistent when a set of postulated propensity score models contains a correctly specified model. Our simulation studies demonstrate satisfactory finite sample performance of the proposed method in terms of consistency and efficiency. We apply the proposed method to compare the risk of postoperative hospitalization between sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass using data from a large medical claims and billing database.We further extend the development to multi-site studies to enable each site to postulate multiple site-specific propensity score models

Uncertainty in the Design Stage of Two-Stage Bayesian Propensity Score Analysis

The two-stage process of propensity score analysis (PSA) includes a design stage where propensity scores are estimated and implemented to approximate a randomized experiment and an analysis stage where treatment effects are estimated conditional upon the design. This paper considers how uncertainty associated with the design stage impacts estimation of causal effects in the analysis stage. Such design uncertainty can derive from the fact that the propensity score itself is an estimated quantity, but also from other features of the design stage tied to choice of propensity score implementation. This paper offers a procedure for obtaining the posterior distribution of causal effects after marginalizing over a distribution of design-stage outputs, lending a degree of formality to Bayesian methods for PSA (BPSA) that have gained attention in recent literature. Formulation of a probability distribution for the design-stage output depends on how the propensity score is implemented in the design stage, and propagation of uncertainty into causal estimates depends on how the treatment effect is estimated in the analysis stage. We explore these differences within a sample of commonly-used propensity score implementations (quantile stratification, nearest-neighbor matching, caliper matching, inverse probability of treatment weighting, and doubly robust estimation) and investigate in a simulation study the impact of statistician choice in PS model and implementation on the degree of between- and within-design variability in the estimated treatment effect. The methods are then deployed in an investigation of the association between levels of fine particulate air pollution and elevated exposure to emissions from coal-fired power plants

RISKS MANAGEMENT. A PROPENSITY SCORE APPLICATION

Risk management is relatively unexplored in Romania. Although Romanian specialists dwell on theoretical aspects such as the risks classification and the important distinction between risks and uncertainty the practical relevance of the matter is outside existing studies. Present paper uses a dataset of consumer data to build a propensity scorecard based on relevant quantitative modeling.risk management, cantitative management