ScholarGate
Asistente

Comparar métodos

Revisa los métodos seleccionados uno junto a otro; las filas que difieren aparecen resaltadas.

Evaluación de Impacto Contrafactual (CIE) para la Evaluación de Políticas×Emparejamiento por Puntuación de Propensión×
CampoInferencia causalEstadística para la investigación
FamiliaRegression modelProcess / pipeline
Año de origen1974 (Rubin potential outcomes); 2010s (EU policy CIE formalisation)1983
Autor originalRubin (potential outcomes framework); European Commission DG Research formalised policy CIE guidelinesPaul Rosenbaum and Donald Rubin
TipoQuasi-experimental causal evaluationMethod
Fuente seminalImbens, 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 ↗
AliasCIE, policy CIE, counterfactual policy evaluation, impact evaluationPSM, propensity score weighting, covariate balance
Relacionados53
ResumenCounterfactual 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.
ScholarGateConjunto de datos
  1. v1
  2. 2 Fuentes
  3. PUBLISHED
  1. v1
  2. 3 Fuentes
  3. PUBLISHED

Ir a la búsqueda Descargar diapositivas

ScholarGateComparar métodos: Policy Evaluation Counterfactual Impact Evaluation · Propensity Score Matching. Recuperado el 2026-06-19 de https://scholargate.app/es/compare