Compară metode
Examinează metodele selectate una lângă alta; rândurile care diferă sunt evidențiate.
| Ponderarea prin probabilitate inversă în cercetarea educațională× | Estimare Dublu Robustă (AIPW)× | |
|---|---|---|
| Domeniu | Inferență cauzală | Inferență cauzală |
| Familie | Regression model | Regression model |
| Anul apariției≠ | 1983–2003 | 2005 |
| Autorul original≠ | Rosenbaum & Rubin (propensity score, 1983); Hirano, Imbens & Ridder (efficient IPW, 2003) | Robins & Rotnitzky; Bang & Robins |
| Tip≠ | Causal weighting estimator | Semiparametric causal estimator |
| Sursa seminală≠ | Hirano, K., Imbens, G. W., & Ridder, G. (2003). Efficient Estimation of Average Treatment Effects Using the Estimated Propensity Score. Econometrica, 71(4), 1161-1189. DOI ↗ | Robins, J. M. & Rotnitzky, A. (1995). Semiparametric Efficiency in Multivariate Regression Models with Missing Data. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90(429), 122-129. DOI ↗ |
| Denumiri alternative | IPW in education, propensity-weighted analysis, IPTW education, inverse probability treatment weighting | AIPW, augmented inverse probability weighting, doubly robust estimator, Çift Gürbüz Kestirici (Augmented IPW / AIPW) |
| Înrudite≠ | 6 | 5 |
| Rezumat≠ | 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. | Doubly Robust Estimation, also called Augmented Inverse Probability Weighting (AIPW), is a semiparametric method for estimating causal treatment effects that combines an outcome regression model with a propensity (treatment) model. Developed in the work of Robins & Rotnitzky (1995) and Bang & Robins (2005), it stays consistent as long as at least one of the two models is correctly specified. |
| ScholarGateSet de date ↗ |
|
|