| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
Authors' Committee
Chair:
Matt Blackwell (Gov)
Members:
Martin Andersen (HealthPol)Kevin Bartz (Stats)
Deirdre Bloome (Social Policy)
Andy Eggers (Gov)
John Graves (HealthPol)
Rich Nielsen (Gov)
Maya Sen (Gov)
Gary King (Gov)
Weekly Research Workshop Sponsors
Alberto Abadie, Lee Fleming, Adam Glynn, Guido Imbens, Gary King, Arthur Spirling, Jamie Robins, Don Rubin, Chris Winship
Recent Comments
- Re: The Balance Test Fallacy in Matching Methods for Causal Inference
By: Gary King - Re: The Balance Test Fallacy in Matching Methods for Causal Inference
By: Felix Elwert
Recent Entries
- Dynamic Panel Models
- Greiner on "Exit Polling and Racial Bloc Voting"
- Choosing variances in general linear models
- Bill Support by Page Length
- Answering "why" questions
- Just in time for "Superfreakonomics"
- Airoldi on "A statistical perspective on complex networks"
- Happy Halloween
- Matching Markets
- Physics of politics
Categories
Blogroll
Brad DeLongCognitive Daily
Complexity & Social Networks
Developing Intelligence
EconLog
The Education Wonks
Empirical Legal Studies
Free Exchange
Freakonomics
Health Care Economist
Junk Charts
Language Log
Law & Econ Prof Blog
Machine Learning (Theory)
Marginal Revolution
Mixing Memory
Mystery Pollster
New Economist
Political Arithmetik
Political Science Methods
Pure Pedantry
Science & Law Blog
Simon Jackman
Social Science++
Statistical modeling, causal inference, and social science
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
Notification
Enter e-mail to [un]subscribe:
« News In Texas Redistricting | Main | Cross-Pollination »
30 June 2006
The Balance Test Fallacy in Matching Methods for Causal Inference
We've talked a lot on this blog about evaluating the quality of matching solutions when applying these matching for preprocessing, and in some of these discussions I've previewed and referenced arguments from a paper I was working on with Kosuke Imai and Liz Stuart. We have finally finished the paper. For anyone interested, you can get a copy here. The abstract follows. Comments welcome!
Matching methods are widely used to adjust for nonrandom treatment assignment when making causal inferences. In numerous articles across a diverse variety of academic fields that use matching, researchers evaluate the success of the procedure by conducting hypothesis tests, most commonly the t-test for the mean difference of each of the observed covariates between the matched treated and control groups. We demonstrate that these hypothesis tests are fallacious and discuss better alternatives.
Posted by Gary King at June 30, 2006 7:47 AM