2017
DOI: 10.1080/00220973.2017.1391161
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Comparison of Bias Reduction Methods: Clustering versus Propensity Score Subclassification and Weighting

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 60 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The distribution of the observations into the subgroup can be implemented by methods as cluster analysis (CA) method or propensity score (PS) methods. However, in this research, we use the method of PS stratification because (1) the CA is more commonly accepted and applied in experimental studies (Peck, 2005;Gibson, 2003;Yoshikawa et al, 2001); (2) the CA is formulated using only baseline characteristics, which are exogenous to the treatment (D'Attoma et al, 2017), while PS is also based on baseline characteristics but related to JED 22,1 treatment (in this study, it is the result of the NRD program) and (3) among PS adjustments, PS stratification is one of the more effective ones (D'Attoma et al, 2017;Schafer and Kang, 2008).…”
Section: Research Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The distribution of the observations into the subgroup can be implemented by methods as cluster analysis (CA) method or propensity score (PS) methods. However, in this research, we use the method of PS stratification because (1) the CA is more commonly accepted and applied in experimental studies (Peck, 2005;Gibson, 2003;Yoshikawa et al, 2001); (2) the CA is formulated using only baseline characteristics, which are exogenous to the treatment (D'Attoma et al, 2017), while PS is also based on baseline characteristics but related to JED 22,1 treatment (in this study, it is the result of the NRD program) and (3) among PS adjustments, PS stratification is one of the more effective ones (D'Attoma et al, 2017;Schafer and Kang, 2008).…”
Section: Research Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%