Use of propensity score matching for training research with observational data

References

• Augurzky, B., & Schmidt, C. M. (2001). The propensity score: A means to an end [working paper no. 271]. Heidelberg, Germany: University of Heidelberg, Institute for the Study of Labor.
   Google Scholar
• Austin, P. C. (2009). The relative ability of different propensity score methods to balance measured covariates between treated and untreated subjects in observational studies. Medical Decision Making, 29, 661–677.
   Google Scholar
• Austin, P. C., Grootendorst, P., & Anderson, G. M. (2006). A comparison of the ability of different propensity score models to balance measured variables between treated and untreated subjects: A Monte Carlo study. Statistics in Medicine, 26, 734–753.
   Google Scholar
• Becker, S. O., & Caliendo, M. (2007). Sensitivity analysis for average treatment effects. Stata Journal, 7, 71–83.
   Google Scholar
• Caliendo, M., & Kopeinig, S. (2008). Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching. Journal of Economic Surveys, 22, 31–72.
   Google Scholar
• Cox, D. R. (1970). The analysis of binary data. London, England: Methuen.
   Google Scholar
• Cox-Edwards, A. & Rodriguez-Oreggia, E. (2009). Remittances and labour force participation in Mexico: An analysis using propensity score matching. World Development, 37, 1004–1014.
   Google Scholar
• Curtis, L. H., Hammill, B. G., Eisenstein, E. L., Kramer, J. M., & Anstrom, K. J. (2007). Using inverse probability-weighted estimators in comparative effectiveness analyses with observational databases. Medical Care, 45, 103–107.
   Google Scholar
• D’Agostino, R. B., Jr. (1998). Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a nonrandomised control group. Statistics in Medicine, 17, 2265–2281.
   Google Scholar
• De Anda, D. (2007). Intervention research and program evaluation in the school setting: Issues and alternative research designs. Children and Schools, 29, 87–94.
   Google Scholar
• Dehejia, R. H., & Wahba, S. (2002). Propensity score-matching methods for nonexperimental causal studies. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 84, 151–161.
   Google Scholar
• Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. (2012). Longitudinal surveys of Australian youth. Canberra, ACT: Australian Data Archive.
   Google Scholar
• DiPrete, T., & Gangl, M. (2004). Assessing bias in the estimation of causal effects: Rosenbaum bounds on matching estimators and instrumental variables estimation with imperfect instruments. Sociological Methodology, 34, 271–310.
   Google Scholar
• Eggert, P., Eggert, W., & Winner, H. (2010). Saving taxes through foreign plant ownership. Journal of International Economics, 81, 99–108.
   Google Scholar
• Eurostat. (2012). European Union Labour Force Survey. Available at http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/microdata/lfs
   Google Scholar
• Fitzpatrick, J. L., Sanders, J. R., & Worthen, B. R. (2004). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines. New York, NY: Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Gemici, S. & Curtis, D. D. (2012). Senior secondary workplace learning and transition success in Australia. Education + Training, 54, 36–49.
   Google Scholar
• Gemici, S., & Rojewski, J. W. (2007). Examining research in career and technical education against scientifically-based research standards. Career and Technical Education Research, 32, 143–159.
   Google Scholar
• Gibson, C. L., Miller, J. M., Jennings, W. G., Swatt, M., & Gover, A. (2009). Using propensity score matching to understand the relationship between gang membership and violent victimization: A research note. Justice Quarterly, 26, 625–643.
   Google Scholar
• Guo, S. Y., & Fraser, M. W. (2010). Propensity score analysis: Statistical methods and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Hahs-Vaughn, D. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2006). Estimating and using propensity score analysis with complex samples. Journal of Experimental Education, 75, 31–65.
   Google Scholar
• Hansen, B. B. (2004). Full matching in an observational study of coaching for the SAT. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 99, 609–618.
   Google Scholar
• Haviland, A., Nagin, D. S., & Rosenbaum, P. R. (2007). Combining propensity score matching and group-based trajectory analysis in an observational study. Psychological Methods, 12, 247–267.
   Google Scholar
• Heckman, J., Ichimura, H., Smith, J., & Todd, P. (1998). Characterizing selection bias using experimental data. Econometrica, 66, 1017–1098.
   Google Scholar
• Heckman, J., Ichimura, H., & Todd, P. (1997). Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator: Evidence from evaluating a job training programme. Review of Economic Studies, 64, 605–654.
   Google Scholar
• Ho, D. E., Imai, K., King, G., & Stuart, E. A. (2007a). Matchit (2.4–11) [computer software]. Available at http://gking.harvard.edu/matchit
   Google Scholar
• Ho, D. E., Imai, K., King, G., & Stuart, E. A. (2007b). Matching as nonparametric preprocessing for reducing model dependence in parametric causal inference. Policy Analysis, 15, 199–236.
   Google Scholar
• IBM. (2011). R integration package for IBM SPSS statistics. Available at ftp://public.dhe.ibm.com/software/analytics/spss/documentation/statistics/20.0/en/rplugin/Manuals/R_Integration_package_for_IBM_SPSS_Statistics.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Imai, K. (2005). Do get-out-the-vote calls reduce turnout? The importance of statistical methods for field experiments. American Political Science Review, 99, 283–300.
   Google Scholar
• Imai, K., King, G., & Stuart, E. A. (2008). Misunderstandings between experimentalists and observationalists about causal inference. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A, 171, 481–502.
   Google Scholar
• Jiang, M., Foster, E. M., & Gibson-Davis, C. M. (2011). Breastfeeding and the child cognitive outcomes: A propensity score matching approach. Maternal & Child Health Journal, 15, 1296–1307.
   Google Scholar
• John, L., Wright, R., Duku, E. K., & Willms, J. D. (2008). The use of propensity scores as a matching strategy. Research on Social Work Practice, 18, 20–26.
   Google Scholar
• Kam, C. D. & Palmer, C. L. (2011). Reconsidering the effects of education on political participation. Journal of Politics, 70, 612–631.
   Google Scholar
• Keele, L. (2010). An overview of rbounds: An R package for Rosenbaum bounds sensitivity analysis with matched data. Available at http://www.polisci.ohio-state.edu/faculty/lkeele/rbounds%20vignette.pdf
   Google Scholar
• King, G. (2009, October 19). Clarification on including survey weights. Message posted to http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.r.matchit/month=20091001
   Google Scholar
• Knight, B. (2012). Evaluation of apprenticeships and traineeships in Australia: An unfinished history. Adelaide, SA: NCVER.
   Google Scholar
• Lechner, M. (1999). Identification and estimation of causal effects of multiple treatments under the conditional independence assumption [discussion paper no. 91]. Bonn, Germany: University of Bonn, Institute of the Study of Labour (IZA).
   Google Scholar
• Leow, C., Marcus, S., Zanutto, E., & Boruch, R. (2004). Effects of advanced course-taking on math and science achievement: Addressing selection bias using propensity scores. American Journal of Evaluation, 25, 461–478.
   Google Scholar
• Leuven, E., & Sianesi, B. (2003). Psmatch2: Stata module to perform full Mahalanobis and propensity score matching, common support graphing, and covariate imbalance testing. [computer software]. Boston, MA: Boston College.
   Google Scholar
• Lunceford, J. K., & Davidian, M. (2004). Stratification and weighting via the propensity score in estimation of causal treatment effects: A comparative study. Statistics in Medicine, 15, 2937–2960.
   Google Scholar
• Mantel, N., & Haenszel, W. (1959). Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 22, 719–748.
   Google Scholar
• McCaffrey, D. F., Ridgeway, G., & Morral, A. R. (2004). Propensity score estimation with boosted regression for evaluating causal effects in observational studies. Psychological Methods, 9, 403–425.
   Google Scholar
• Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research. (2012). Household, income and labour dynamics in Australia Survey. Melbourne, VIC: University of Melbourne.
   Google Scholar
• Melguizo, T., Kienzl, G., & Alfonso, M. (2011). Comparing the educational attainment of community college transfer students and fouryear college rising juniors using propensity score matching methods. Journal of Higher Education, 82, 265–291.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan, P. L., Frisco, M. L., Farkas, G., & Hibel, J. (2010). A propensity score matching analysis of the effects of special education services. Journal of Special Education, 43, 236–254.
   Google Scholar
• Owen, J. M. (2007). Program evaluation: Forms and approaches. New York, NY: Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• Patton, M. Q. (2008). Utilization-focused evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Reiter, J. (2000). Using statistics to determine causal relationships. American Mathematical Monthly, 107(1), 24–32.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenbaum, P. R. (1991). A characterization of optimal designs for observational studies. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 53, 597–610.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenbaum, P. R. (2002). Observational studies. New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70, 41–55.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1984). Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 79, 516–524.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1985). Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. The American Statistician, 39, 33–38.
   Google Scholar
• Rubin, D. B. (1997). Estimating causal effects from large data sets using propensity scores. Annals of Internal Medicine, 127, 757–763.
   Google Scholar
• Rubin, D. B., & Thomas, N. (1996). Matching using estimated propensity scores: Relating theory to practice. Biometrics, 52, 249–264.
   Google Scholar
• Schneider, B., Carnoy, M., Kilpatrick, J., Schmidt, W. H., & Shavelson, R. J. (2007). Estimating causal effects using experimental and observational designs (report from the Governing Board of the American Educational Research Association Grants Program). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
   Google Scholar
• Sekhon, J. S. (2011). Multivariate and propensity score matching software with automated balance optimization: The Matching package for R. Journal of Statistical Software, 42, 1–52.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, J., & Todd, P. E. (2005). Does matching overcome LaLonde’s critique of nonexperimental estimators? Journal of Econometrics, 125, 305–353.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2012). National longitudinal surveys. Available at http://www.bls.gov/nls/
   Google Scholar