So sánh phương pháp
Xem các phương pháp đã chọn cạnh nhau; những hàng khác biệt được làm nổi bật.
| Nghiên cứu sự kiện theo nhóm dữ liệu (Policy Evaluation Panel Event Study)× | Ghép cặp điểm xu hướng× | |
|---|---|---|
| Lĩnh vực≠ | Suy luận nhân quả | Thống kê nghiên cứu |
| Họ≠ | Regression model | Process / pipeline |
| Năm ra đời≠ | 2021 | 1983 |
| Người khởi xướng≠ | Callaway & Sant'Anna (2021); Borusyak, Jaravel & Spiess (2024); Sun & Abraham (2021) | Paul Rosenbaum and Donald Rubin |
| Loại≠ | Causal inference / quasi-experimental panel design | Method |
| Công trình gốc≠ | Callaway, B., & Sant'Anna, P. H. C. (2021). Difference-in-differences with multiple time periods. Journal of Econometrics, 225(2), 200-230. 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 khác≠ | panel event study, event-study DiD, staggered event study, difference-in-differences event study | PSM, propensity score weighting, covariate balance |
| Liên quan≠ | 6 | 3 |
| Tóm tắt≠ | A panel event study is a quasi-experimental design that traces how an outcome evolves in periods before and after a policy event, using unit and time fixed effects to identify the causal effect. Widely used in economics and policy research, it tests for anticipation effects, verifies parallel pre-trends, and estimates dynamic treatment effects across post-treatment horizons — making it the standard toolkit for rigorous policy evaluation with observational panel data. | 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 ↗ |
|
|