4.6 Article

Robust Post-Matching Inference

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN STATISTICAL ASSOCIATION
卷 117, 期 538, 页码 983-995

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/01621459.2020.1840383

关键词

Matching; Robust estimation; Treatment effects

资金

  1. NSF [SES 0961707]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Nearest-neighbor matching is a useful tool for creating balance between treatment and control groups in observational studies, reducing the dependence on parametric modeling assumptions. Ignoring the matching step can lead to invalid standard errors, especially if matching is conducted with replacement or if the regression model is misspecified.
Nearest-neighbor matching is a popular nonparametric tool to create balance between treatment and control groups in observational studies. As a preprocessing step before regression, matching reduces the dependence on parametric modeling assumptions. In current empirical practice, however, the matching step is often ignored in the calculation of standard errors and confidence intervals. In this article, we show that ignoring the matching step results in asymptotically valid standard errors if matching is done without replacement and the regression model is correctly specified relative to the population regression function of the outcome variable on the treatment variable and all the covariates used for matching. However, standard errors that ignore the matching step are not valid if matching is conducted with replacement or, more crucially, if the second step regression model is misspecified in the sense indicated above. Moreover, correct specification of the regression model is not required for consistent estimation of treatment effects with matched data. We show that two easily implementable alternatives produce approximations to the distribution of the post-matching estimator that are robust to misspecification. A simulation study and an empirical example demonstrate the empirical relevance of our results. for this article are available online.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据