ScholarGate
Trợ lý

So sánh phương pháp

Xem các phương pháp đã chọn cạnh nhau; những hàng khác biệt được làm nổi bật.

Đánh giá chính sách với biến công cụ×Ghép cặp điểm xu hướng×
Lĩnh vựcSuy luận nhân quảThống kê nghiên cứu
HọRegression modelProcess / pipeline
Năm ra đời1996 (modern policy-evaluation framing); IV roots 1920s1983
Người khởi xướngAngrist, Imbens & Rubin (canonical 1996 JASA framework); foundational IV roots in Wright (1928) and Theil (1953)Paul Rosenbaum and Donald Rubin
LoạiQuasi-experimental causal inference / IV regressionMethod
Công trình gốcAngrist, J. D., Imbens, G. W., & Rubin, D. B. (1996). Identification of Causal Effects Using Instrumental Variables. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 91(434), 444-455. 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 ↗
Tên gọi khácIV policy evaluation, 2SLS policy analysis, natural-experiment IV, policy IV estimationPSM, propensity score weighting, covariate balance
Liên quan53
Tóm tắtInstrumental Variables (IV) estimation for policy evaluation is a quasi-experimental technique that uses an exogenous instrument — a variable that shifts exposure to a policy but is otherwise unrelated to the outcome — to recover the causal effect of a program or intervention from non-experimental data. Popularised in policy research by Angrist, Imbens, and Rubin (1996), it identifies the Local Average Treatment Effect (LATE) among units whose treatment status is changed by the instrument.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.
ScholarGateBộ dữ liệu
  1. v1
  2. 2 Nguồn tài liệu
  3. PUBLISHED
  1. v1
  2. 3 Nguồn tài liệu
  3. PUBLISHED

Đến trang tìm kiếm Tải xuống bản trình chiếu

ScholarGateSo sánh phương pháp: Policy Evaluation Instrumental Variables · Propensity Score Matching. Truy cập ngày 2026-06-19 từ https://scholargate.app/vi/compare