Comparer des méthodes

	Pondération par Probabilité Inverse dans la Recherche en Éducation	Différence-en-différences (Diff-in-Diff)
Domaine	Inférence causale	Économétrie
Famille	Regression model	Regression model
Année d'origine	1983–2003	1994
Auteur d'origine	Rosenbaum & Rubin (propensity score, 1983); Hirano, Imbens & Ridder (efficient IPW, 2003)	Card & Krueger (canonical 1994 application); Angrist & Pischke (textbook treatment)
Type	Causal weighting estimator	Causal inference / panel regression
Source fondatrice	Hirano, K., Imbens, G. W., & Ridder, G. (2003). Efficient Estimation of Average Treatment Effects Using the Estimated Propensity Score. Econometrica, 71(4), 1161-1189.	Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J.-S. (2009). Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion. Princeton University Press. ISBN: 978-0691120355
Alias	IPW in education, propensity-weighted analysis, IPTW education, inverse probability treatment weighting	diff-in-diff, DiD, Farkların Farkı (Diff-in-Diff)
Apparentées	6	5
Résumé	Inverse Probability Weighting (IPW) is a causal inference technique that reweights observational education data to mimic a randomised experiment. Each student or school is assigned a weight equal to the inverse of the probability they received the treatment — thereby creating a pseudo-population in which programme participation is independent of measured background characteristics. The method is widely used in education research to evaluate school programmes, interventions, and policies from administrative or survey data.	Difference-in-Differences is a causal-inference method that estimates the effect of an intervention by comparing how a treatment group and a control group change over time. Made famous by Card and Krueger's 1994 minimum-wage study and developed in Angrist and Pischke's Mostly Harmless Econometrics, it isolates the treatment effect as the difference between the two groups' before-after changes.