ScholarGate
助手

方法对比

并排查看您选择的方法;存在差异的行会高亮显示。

反事实影响评估 (CIE)×因果推断的工具变量(IV)方法×
领域因果推断卫生经济学
方法族Regression modelProcess / pipeline
起源年份1970s–2000s1990s (modern applications)
提出者Heckman, Imbens, Rubin, and the program evaluation literatureAngrist & Pischke (applied econometrics); rooted in econometric theory
类型Causal inference / program evaluationMethod
开创性文献Heckman, J. J., & Vytlacil, E. J. (2007). Econometric evaluation of social programs, Part I: Causal models, structural models and econometric policy evaluation. Handbook of Econometrics, 6B, 4779-4874. DOI ↗Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J. S. (2009). Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion. Princeton: Princeton University Press. link ↗
别名CIE, counterfactual evaluation, counterfactual policy evaluation, impact evaluationIV, two-stage least squares, TSLS, causal estimation
相关53
摘要Counterfactual Impact Evaluation is a family of causal methods that estimates the effect of an intervention by comparing what actually happened to participants with what would have happened had the intervention not taken place. Formalised in the Rubin Causal Model and extended by Heckman, Imbens and others, CIE underlies most modern program and policy evaluation practice.Instrumental variables (IV) is an econometric method to estimate causal effects when treatment or exposure is not randomly assigned and confounding is severe or unmeasured. IV relies on a third variable (instrument) that influences treatment but does not directly affect the outcome, allowing researchers to isolate the causal effect from the noise of confounding. Developed extensively in econometrics (Angrist & Pischke, 1990s–2000s), IV methods are increasingly used in health economics and health services research to leverage natural experiments and policy changes.
ScholarGate数据集
  1. v1
  2. 2 来源
  3. PUBLISHED
  1. v1
  2. 3 来源
  3. PUBLISHED

前往搜索 下载幻灯片

ScholarGate方法对比: Counterfactual Impact Evaluation · Instrumental Variables in Health Research. 于 2026-06-19 检索自 https://scholargate.app/zh/compare