방법 비교
선택한 방법을 나란히 검토하세요. 서로 다른 행은 강조 표시됩니다.
| 정책 평가 차이-이중차분× | 성향 점수 매칭× | |
|---|---|---|
| 분야≠ | 인과추론 | 연구 통계 |
| 계열≠ | Regression model | Process / pipeline |
| 기원 연도≠ | 1978-2009 | 1983 |
| 창시자≠ | Ashenfelter (1978); Heckman, LaLonde & Smith (1999); Imbens & Wooldridge (2009) | Paul Rosenbaum and Donald Rubin |
| 유형≠ | Quasi-experimental / policy evaluation | Method |
| 원전≠ | Imbens, 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 ↗ |
| 별칭≠ | policy DiD, program evaluation DiD, policy impact DiD, DiD policy assessment | PSM, propensity score weighting, covariate balance |
| 관련≠ | 4 | 3 |
| 요약≠ | Policy Evaluation DiD applies the difference-in-differences estimator specifically to assess the causal impact of government programs, regulations, or policy reforms. It compares outcome changes in a group exposed to the policy against a comparable untreated group, before and after the policy took effect, isolating the net policy effect from pre-existing trends and time-common shocks. | 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 ↗ |
|
|