Covariate Balance for Observational Effectiveness Studies: A Comparison of Matching and Weighting

Autor/inn/en	Kush, Joseph M.; Pas, Elise T.; Musci, Rashelle J.; Bradshaw, Catherine P.
Titel	Covariate Balance for Observational Effectiveness Studies: A Comparison of Matching and Weighting
Quelle	In: Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 16 (2023) 2, S.189-212 (24 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Zusatzinformation	ORCID (Kush, Joseph M.) ORCID (Pas, Elise T.) ORCID (Musci, Rashelle J.) ORCID (Bradshaw, Catherine P.) Weitere Informationen
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	1934-5747
DOI	10.1080/19345747.2022.2110545
Schlagwörter	Probability; Observation; Weighted Scores; Monte Carlo Methods; Educational Research; Sample Size; Evaluation Criteria + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung; Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie; Beobachtung; Monte-Carlo-Methode; Bildungsforschung; Pädagogische Forschung
Abstract	Propensity score matching and weighting methods are often used in observational effectiveness studies to reduce imbalance between treated and untreated groups on a set of potential confounders. However, much of the prior methodological literature on matching and weighting has yet to examine performance for scenarios with a majority of treated units, as is often encountered with programs and interventions that have been widely disseminated or "scaled-up." Using a series of Monte Carlo simulations, we compare the performance of k:1 matching with replacement and weighting methods with respect to covariate balance, bias, and mean squared error. Results indicate that the accuracy of all methods declined as treatment prevalence increased. While weighting produced the largest reduction in covariate imbalance, 1:1 matching with replacement provided the most unbiased treatment effect estimates. An applied example using empirical school-level data is provided to further illustrate the application and interpretation of these methods to a real-world scale-up effort. We conclude by considering the implications of propensity score methods for observational effectiveness studies with a particular focus on educational research. [For the corresponding grantee submission, see ED622050.] (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2024/1/01