ScholarGate
Assistent

Compara mètodes

Revisa els mètodes seleccionats l'un al costat de l'altre; les files que difereixen es ressalten.

Avaluació de Polítiques amb Ponderació per Probabilitat Inversa×Emparellament per puntuació de propensió×
CampInferència causalEstadística per a la recerca
FamíliaRegression modelProcess / pipeline
Any d'origen1952 (IPW origin); 2000s (policy evaluation application)1983
Autor originalHorvitz & Thompson (1952); extended to causal policy settings by Robins, Hernan & Brumback (2000) and Imbens & Wooldridge (2009)Paul Rosenbaum and Donald Rubin
TipusReweighting estimator for causal policy analysisMethod
Font seminalImbens, G. W., & Wooldridge, J. M. (2009). Recent Developments in the Econometrics of Program Evaluation. Journal of Economic Literature, 47(1), 5-86. DOI ↗Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41–55. DOI ↗
ÀliesIPW policy evaluation, propensity-weighted policy analysis, inverse probability of treatment weightingPSM, propensity score weighting, covariate balance
Relacionats63
ResumPolicy evaluation inverse probability weighting (IPW) uses estimated propensity scores to reweight observed units so that the weighted sample mimics a randomised experiment. Each unit is weighted by the inverse of its probability of receiving the policy, creating a pseudo-population in which treatment assignment is independent of observed covariates and the average treatment effect (ATE) can be read off directly.Propensity score matching (PSM) is a method for reducing confounding bias in observational studies by balancing baseline characteristics between treatment groups, simulating randomization. Developed by Rosenbaum and Rubin (1983), it estimates the probability of receiving treatment given observed covariates, then matches or weights treated and control individuals with similar treatment probabilities. Widely used in medicine, epidemiology, and policy evaluation when randomized trials are infeasible or unethical, enabling estimation of treatment effects while controlling for selection bias.
ScholarGateConjunt de dades
  1. v1
  2. 2 Fonts
  3. PUBLISHED
  1. v1
  2. 3 Fonts
  3. PUBLISHED

Ves a la cerca Baixa les diapositives

ScholarGateCompara mètodes: Policy Evaluation Inverse Probability Weighting · Propensity Score Matching. Recuperat el 2026-06-19 de https://scholargate.app/ca/compare