Abstract:Summary The design of any study, whether experimental or observational, that is intended to estimate the causal effects of a treatment condition relative to a control condition refers to those activities that precede any examination of outcome variables. As defined in our 1983 article (Rosenbaum & Rubin, 1983), the propensity score is the unit-level conditional probability of assignment to treatment versus control given the observed covariates; so the propensity score explicitly does not involve any outcome variables, in contrast to other summaries of variables sometimes used in observational studies. Balancing the distributions of covariates in the treatment and control groups by matching or balancing on the propensity score is therefore an aspect of the design of the observational study. In this invited comment on our 1983 article, we review the situation in the early 1980s and recall some apparent paradoxes that propensity scores helped to resolve. We demonstrate that it is possible to balance an enormous number of low-dimensional summaries of a high-dimensional covariate, even though it is generally impossible to match individuals closely for all the components of a high-dimensional covariate. In a sense, there is only one crucial observed covariate, the propensity score, and there is one crucial unobserved covariate, the principal unobserved covariate. The propensity score and the principal unobserved covariate are equal when treatment assignment is strongly ignorable, that is, unconfounded. Controlling for observed covariates is a prelude to the crucial step from association to causation, the step that addresses potential biases from unmeasured covariates. The design of an observational study also prepares for the step to causation: by selecting comparisons to increase the design sensitivity, by seeking opportunities to detect bias, by seeking mutually supportive evidence affected by different biases, by incorporating quasi-experimental devices such as multiple control groups, and by including the economist’s instruments. All of these considerations reflect the formal development of sensitivity analyses that were largely informal prior to the 1980s.

A Comparative Study of Design-Based and Analysis-Based Approaches to Causal Inference with Observational Data

Comparing methods for estimation of heterogeneous treatment effects using observational data from health care databases

For Objective Causal Inference, Design Trumps Analysis

Distinguishing Between Mediators and Confounders is Important for the Causal Inference in Observational Studies

The Design Versus the Analysis of Observational Studies for Causal Effects: Parallels with the Design of Randomized Trials

A Survey on Causal Inference

Propensity scores in the design of observational studies for causal effects

A Proxy Outcome Approach for Causal Effect in Observational Studies: a Simulation Study.

Bayesian Nonparametric Modeling for Causal Inference

Distributed Design for Causal Inferences on Big Observational Data

Propensity Score Adapted Covariate Selection for Causal Inference

Statistical Approaches for Causal Inference

Causal Inference and Related Statistical Methods

A robust and efficient approach to causal inference based on sparse sufficient dimension reduction

Robust Estimating Method for Propensity Score Models and its Application to Some Causal Estimands: A review and proposal

Propensity Score Matching and Causal Inference: A methodological review

Variance Reduction for Causal Inference

G-computation, propensity score-based methods, and targeted maximum likelihood estimator for causal inference with different covariates sets: a comparative simulation study

Causal Inference: A Missing Data Perspective

Causal Inference with Bipartite Designs

Simulation Study in Quantifying Heterogeneous Causal Effects