방법 비교
선택한 방법을 나란히 검토하세요. 서로 다른 행은 강조 표시됩니다.
| CEM(Coarsened Exact Matching)을 이용한 정책 평가× | 성향 점수 매칭× | |
|---|---|---|
| 분야≠ | 인과추론 | 연구 통계 |
| 계열≠ | Regression model | Process / pipeline |
| 기원 연도≠ | 2011-2012 | 1983 |
| 창시자≠ | Iacus, King & Porro | Paul Rosenbaum and Donald Rubin |
| 유형≠ | Matching / quasi-experimental design | Method |
| 원전≠ | Iacus, S. M., King, G., & Porro, G. (2012). Causal inference without balance checking: Coarsened exact matching. Political Analysis, 20(1), 1-24. 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 ↗ |
| 별칭≠ | CEM, Coarsened Exact Matching, CEM policy evaluation, coarsening-based matching | PSM, propensity score weighting, covariate balance |
| 관련≠ | 5 | 3 |
| 요약≠ | Coarsened Exact Matching (CEM) is a quasi-experimental causal-inference technique that creates balanced treatment and control groups from observational data by temporarily coarsening covariates into bins, exactly matching units within those bins, and then pruning unmatched observations before estimating policy effects. Introduced by Iacus, King, and Porro, CEM belongs to the monotonic imbalance bounding family of matching methods and is especially popular in policy evaluation. | 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. |
| ScholarGate데이터셋 ↗ |
|
|