倾向计分(积分,匹配)法psm_sswr_2004.pdfVIP

Introduction to Propensity Score Matching: A New Device for Program Evaluation Workshop Presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for Social Work Research New Orleans, January, 2004 Shenyang Guo, Ph.D.¹, Richard Barth, Ph.D. ¹, and Claire Gibbons, MPH ² Schools of Social Work¹ and Public Health ² University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill NSCAW data used to illustrate PSM were collected under funding by the Administration on Children, Youth, and Families of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Findings do not represent the official position or policies of the U.S. DHHS. PSM analyses were partially funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Childrens Bureau’s Child Welfare Research Fellowship. Results are preliminary and not quotable. Contact information: sguo@ Outline • Overview: Why Propensity Score Matching? • Highlights of the key features of PSM • Example: Does substance abuse treatment reduce the likelihood of child maltreatment re-report? Why Propensity Score Matching? • Theory of Counterfactuals • The fact is that some people receive treatment. • The counterfactual question is: “What would have happened to those who, in fact, did receive treatment, if they had not received treatment (or the converse)?” • Counterfactuals cannot be seen or heard—we can only create an estimate of them. • PSM is one “correction strategy” that corrects for the selection biases in making estimates. Approximating Counterfactuals • A range of flawed methods have long been available to us: • RCTs • Quasi-experimental designs • Matching on single characteristics that distinguish treatment and control groups (to try to make them more alike) Limitations of Random Assignment • Large