zbMATH — the first resource for mathematics

Affinely invariant matching methods with discriminant mixtures of proportional ellipsoidally symmetric distributions. (English) Zbl 1246.62159
Summary: In observational studies designed to estimate the effects of interventions or exposures, such as cigarette smoking, it is desirable to try to control background differences between the treated group (e.g., current smokers) and the control group (e.g., never smokers) on covariates \(X\) (e.g., age, education). Matched sampling attempts to effect this control by selecting subsets of the treated and control groups with similar distributions of such covariates. This paper examines the consequences of matching using affinely invariant methods when the covariate distributions are “discriminant mixtures of proportional ellipsoidally symmetric” (DMPES) distributions, a class herein defined, which generalizes the ellipsoidal symmetry class of D.B. Rubinand N. Thomas [ibid. 20, No. 2, 1079-1093 (1992; Zbl 0761.62065)]. The resulting generalized results help indicate why earlier results hold quite well even when the simple assumption of ellipsoidal symmetry is not met (e.g., D.B. Rubin and N. Thomas, Biometrics 52, No. 1, 249–264 (1996; Zbl 0881.62121)]. Extensions to conditionally affinely invariant matching with conditionally DMPES distributions are also discussed.

62H99 Multivariate analysis
62H10 Multivariate distribution of statistics
62D05 Sampling theory, sample surveys
Full Text: DOI Euclid arXiv
[1] Christakis, N. A. and Iwashyna, T. J. (2003). The health impact of health care on families: A matched cohort study of hospice use by decedents and mortality outcomes in surviving, widowed spouses. Social Science and Medicine 57 465–475.
[2] Cochran, W. G. (1968). The effectiveness of adjustment by subclassification in removing bias in observational studies. Biometrics 24 295–313. JSTOR:
[3] Cochran, W. G. and Rubin, D. B. (1973). Controlling bias in observational studies: A review. Sankhyā Ser. A 35 417–446. · Zbl 0291.62012
[4] Dehejia, R. H. and Wahba, S. (1999). Causal effects in nonexperimental studies: Re-evaluating the evaluation of training programs. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 94 1053–1062.
[5] Dempster, A. P. (1969). Elements of Continuous Multivariate Analysis . Addison–Wesley, Reading, MA. · Zbl 0197.44904
[6] Efron, B. (1975). The efficiency of logistic regression compared to normal discriminant analysis. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 70 892–898. JSTOR: · Zbl 0319.62039
[7] Gerfin, M. and Lechner, M. (2002). A microeconometric evaluation of the active labour market policy in Switzerland. The Economic Journal 112 854–893.
[8] Hill, J., Rubin, D. B. and Thomas, N. (2000). The design of the New York School Choice Scholarship Program evaluation. In Research Design : Donald Campbell’s Legacy (L. Bickman, ed.) 155–180. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
[9] Imai, K. (2005). Do get-out-the-vote calls reduce turnout? The importance of statistical methods for field experiments. American Political Science Review 99 283–300.
[10] Imbens, G. W. (2004). Nonparametric estimation of average treatment effects under exogeneity: A review. Rev. Econom. Statist. 86 4–29.
[11] Rosenbaum, P. R. (2002). Observational Studies , 2nd ed. Springer, New York. · Zbl 0985.62091
[12] Rosenbaum, P. R. and Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70 41–55. JSTOR: · Zbl 0522.62091
[13] Rosenbaum, P. R. and Rubin, D. B. (1985). Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. Amer. Statist. 39 33–38.
[14] Rubin, D. B. (1976). Multivariate matching methods that are equal percent bias reducing. I. Some examples. Biometrics 32 109–120. JSTOR: · Zbl 0326.62043
[15] Rubin, D. B. (2001). Using propensity scores to help design observational studies: Application to the tobacco litigation. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology 2 169–188.
[16] Rubin, D. B. and Thomas, N. (1992). Affinely invariant matching methods with ellipsoidal distributions. Ann. Statist. 20 1079–1093. · Zbl 0761.62065
[17] Rubin, D. B. and Thomas, N. (1992). Characterizing the effect of matching using linear propensity score methods with normal distributions. Biometrika 79 797–809. JSTOR: · Zbl 0765.62098
[18] Rubin, D. B. and Thomas, N. (1996). Matching using estimated propensity scores: Relating theory to practice. Biometrics 52 249–264. · Zbl 0881.62121
[19] Rubin, D. B. and Thomas, N. (2000). Combining propensity score matching with additional adjustments for prognostic covariates. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 95 573–585.
[20] Smith, H. (1997). Matching with multiple controls to estimate treatment effects in observational studies. Sociological Methodology 27 325–353.
[21] Smith, J. and Todd, P. (2005). Does matching overcome LaLonde’s critique of nonexperimental estimators? J. Econometrics 125 305–353. · Zbl 1334.62225
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. It attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming the completeness or perfect precision of the matching.