Abstract:Matched sampling is a standard technique in the evaluation of treatments in observational studies. Matching on estimated propensity scores comprises an important class of procedures when there are numerous matching variables. Recent theoretical work (Rubin, D. B. and Thomas, N., 1992, The Annals of Statistics 20, 1079-1093) on affinely invariant matching methods with ellipsoidal distributions provides a general framework for evaluating the operating characteristics of such methods. Moreover, Rubin and Thomas (1992, Biometrika 79, 797-809) uses this framework to derive several analytic approximations under normality for the distribution of the first two moments of the matching variables in samples obtained by matching on estimated linear propensity scores. Here we provide a bridge between these theoretical approximations and actual practice. First, we complete and refine the nomal-based analytic approximations, thereby making it possible to apply these results to practice. Second, we perform Monte Carlo evaluations of the analytic results under normal and nonnormal ellipsoidal distributions, which confirm the accuracy of the analytic approximations, and demonstrate the predictable ways in which the approximations deviate from simulation results when normal assumptions are violated within the ellipsoidal family. Third, we apply the analytic approximations to real data with clearly nonellipsoidal distributions, and show that the theoretical expressions, although derived under artificial distributional conditions, produce useful guidance for practice. Our results delineate the wide range of settings in which matching on estimated linear propensity scores performs well, thereby providing useful information for the design of matching studies. When matching with a particular data set, our theoretical approximations provide benchmarks for expected performance under favorable conditions, thereby identifying matching variables requiring special treatment. After matching is complete and data analysis is at hand, our results provide the variances required to compute valid standard errors for common estimators.

Measurement Error and Regression to the Mean in Matched Samples

Matching and Regression to the Mean in Difference‐in‐Differences Analysis

Matching Using Estimated Propensity Scores: Relating Theory to Practice

The Use of Matched Sampling and Regression Adjustment to Remove Bias in Observational Studies

The Bias Due to Incomplete Matching.

Mistaken identities lead to missed opportunities: Testing for mean differences in partially matched data

Regression calibration to correct correlated errors in outcome and exposure

Matching Bounds: How Choice of Matching Algorithm Impacts Treatment Effects Estimates and What to Do about It

Subgroup Analysis of Linear Models with Measurement Error

Regression to the mean for the bivariate binomial distribution

Difference-based estimation for error variances in repeated measurement regression models

Regression to the mean effect for bi-variate dispersed count data

Combining matching and linear regression: Introducing a mathematical framework and software for simulations, diagnostics and calibration

A general algorithm for error-in-variables regression modelling using Monte Carlo expectation maximization

Measurement Error as a Missing Data Problem

Assessment of Heterogeneous Treatment Effect Estimation Accuracy via Matching

Testing Biased Randomization Assumptions and Quantifying Imperfect Matching and Residual Confounding in Matched Observational Studies

Regression to the Mean's Impact on the Synthetic Control Method: Bias and Sensitivity Analysis

The Impact of Incorrectly-Measured Variables when Mixed with Precisely Measured Variables on the Study of Validity in Epidemiological Research

MULTIVARIATE MATCHING METHODS THAT ARE EQUAL PERCENT BIAS REDUCING .2. MAXIMUMS ON BIAS REDUCTION FOR FIXED SAMPLE SIZES

A general, simple, robust method to account for measurement error when analyzing data with an internal validation subsample