ScholarGate
Assistant

Comparer des méthodes

Examinez les méthodes sélectionnées côte à côte ; les lignes qui diffèrent sont mises en évidence.

Évaluation d'Impact Contrefactuel (EIC) pour l'Évaluation des Politiques×Appariement par score de propension×
DomaineInférence causaleStatistiques de recherche
FamilleRegression modelProcess / pipeline
Année d'origine1974 (Rubin potential outcomes); 2010s (EU policy CIE formalisation)1983
Auteur d'origineRubin (potential outcomes framework); European Commission DG Research formalised policy CIE guidelinesPaul Rosenbaum and Donald Rubin
TypeQuasi-experimental causal evaluationMethod
Source fondatriceImbens, 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
Apparentées53
RésuméCounterfactual 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.
ScholarGateJeu de données
  1. v1
  2. 2 Sources
  3. PUBLISHED
  1. v1
  2. 3 Sources
  3. PUBLISHED

Aller à la recherche Télécharger les diapositives

ScholarGateComparer des méthodes: Policy Evaluation Counterfactual Impact Evaluation · Propensity Score Matching. Consulté le 2026-06-19 sur https://scholargate.app/fr/compare