
Many studies aim to estimate causal effects of risk factors, interventions, or programs, on outcomes of interest. While randomization is generally seen as the preferred design for estimating causal effects it is not always possible to randomize the “treatments” of interest, especially in the social sciences. Propensity scores are a useful tool that can help yield better estimates of causal effects in non-experimental studies by ensuring that the treatment and comparison groups are similar with respect to the observed covariates. The propensity score itself is defined as the probability of receiving the treatment given a set of observed covariates (Rosenbaum & Rubin, 1983a). It is used to equate (or “balance”) the covariates between the treatment and comparison groups through propensity score matching, weighting, or subclassification (Stuart, 2010). Outcomes can then be compared between the equated groups, with less risk for extrapolation from treatment to comparison group (and vice versa), thus yielding more reliable causal effect estimates (Ho, Imai, King, & Stuart, 2007). For overviews and current methods, see Hernan and Robins (2015), Imbens and Rubin (2015), Stuart (2010), and Rosenbaum (2009).
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 1 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
