ScholarGate
Βοηθός

Σύγκριση μεθόδων

Εξετάστε τις επιλεγμένες μεθόδους δίπλα-δίπλα· οι γραμμές που διαφέρουν επισημαίνονται.

Αξιολόγηση Επιπτώσεων Πολιτικής – Αξιολόγηση Αντιπαραθετικών Επιπτώσεων (CIE)×Αντιστοίχιση Βαθμολογίας Προδιάθεσης×
ΠεδίοΑιτιακή ΣυμπερασματολογίαΕρευνητική Στατιστική
ΟικογένειαRegression modelProcess / pipeline
Έτος προέλευσης1974 (Rubin potential outcomes); 2010s (EU policy CIE formalisation)1983
ΔημιουργόςRubin (potential outcomes framework); European Commission DG Research formalised policy CIE guidelinesPaul Rosenbaum and Donald Rubin
ΤύποςQuasi-experimental causal evaluationMethod
Θεμελιώδης πηγήImbens, G. W., & Rubin, D. B. (2015). Causal Inference for Statistics, Social, and Biomedical Sciences: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 978-0521885881Rosenbaum, 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 ↗
Εναλλακτικές ονομασίεςCIE, policy CIE, counterfactual policy evaluation, impact evaluationPSM, propensity score weighting, covariate balance
Συναφείς53
ΣύνοψηCounterfactual Impact Evaluation (CIE) for policy assessment estimates the causal effect of a public policy or programme by comparing observed outcomes of participants against a rigorously constructed counterfactual — what would have happened had the policy not existed. Rooted in the Rubin potential-outcomes framework, CIE is the standard methodology endorsed by the European Commission for evaluating research, innovation, and structural funding programmes.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.
ScholarGateΣύνολο δεδομένων
  1. v1
  2. 2 Πηγές
  3. PUBLISHED
  1. v1
  2. 3 Πηγές
  3. PUBLISHED

Μετάβαση στην αναζήτηση Λήψη διαφανειών

ScholarGateΣύγκριση μεθόδων: Policy Evaluation Counterfactual Impact Evaluation · Propensity Score Matching. Ανακτήθηκε στις 2026-06-19 από https://scholargate.app/el/compare