ScholarGate
Assistant

Comparer des méthodes

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

Évaluation de politiques par pondération par l'inverse de la probabilité×Appariement par score de propension×
DomaineInférence causaleStatistiques de recherche
FamilleRegression modelProcess / pipeline
Année d'origine1952 (IPW origin); 2000s (policy evaluation application)1983
Auteur d'origineHorvitz & Thompson (1952); extended to causal policy settings by Robins, Hernan & Brumback (2000) and Imbens & Wooldridge (2009)Paul Rosenbaum and Donald Rubin
TypeReweighting estimator for causal policy analysisMethod
Source fondatriceImbens, 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 ↗
AliasIPW policy evaluation, propensity-weighted policy analysis, inverse probability of treatment weightingPSM, propensity score weighting, covariate balance
Apparentées63
RésuméPolicy 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.
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 Inverse Probability Weighting · Propensity Score Matching. Consulté le 2026-06-19 sur https://scholargate.app/fr/compare