Matching with Multiple Control Groups , and Adjusting for Group Differences

When estimating causal effects from observational data, it is desirable to replicate a randomized experiment as closely as possible, for example, by obtaining treated and control groups with extremely similar distributions of observed covariates. This goal can often be achieved by choosing a subsample from the original control group that matches the treatment group on the distribution of these covariates, thus reducing bias due to these covariates. However, sometimes the original sample of control units cannot provide adequate matches for the treated units. In these cases, it may be desirable to obtain matched controls from multiple control groups. Multiple control groups have been used to test for hidden biases in causal inference (e.g., Rosenbaum 2002); however, little work has been done on their use in matching or for adjusting for biases, such as potential systematic differences between the original control group and supplemental control groups beyond that which can be explained by observed covariates. Here we present a method that uses matches from multiple control groups and adjusts for potentially unobserved differences between the additional control groups and the original control group in the analysis of the outcome. The method is illustrated and evaluated using simulated data as well as data from an evaluation of a school dropout prevention program, which utilizes both local and non-local matches.

[1]  D. Rubin,et al.  Combining Propensity Score Matching with Additional Adjustments for Prognostic Covariates , 2000 .

[2]  Donald B. Rubin,et al.  Affinely invariant matching methods with discriminant mixtures of proportional ellipsoidally symmetric distributions , 2006, math/0611263.

[3]  S G Baker,et al.  Rethinking historical controls. , 2001, Biostatistics.

[4]  Donald B. Rubin,et al.  Multivariate matching methods that are equal percent bias reducing , 1974 .

[5]  Donald B. Rubin,et al.  Multivariate matching methods that are equal percent bias reducing , 1974 .

[6]  D B Rubin,et al.  Matching using estimated propensity scores: relating theory to practice. , 1996, Biometrics.

[7]  D. Rubin,et al.  Constructing a Control Group Using Multivariate Matched Sampling Methods That Incorporate the Propensity Score , 1985 .

[8]  Donald B. Rubin,et al.  Characterizing the effect of matching using linear propensity score methods with normal distributions , 1992 .

[9]  P. Gleason,et al.  Impacts of School Restructuring Initiatives , 1998 .

[10]  N. Christakis,et al.  The health impact of health care on families: a matched cohort study of hospice use by decedents and mortality outcomes in surviving, widowed spouses. , 2003, Social science & medicine.

[11]  Steven Glazerman,et al.  NONEXPERIMENTAL VERSUS EXPERIMENTAL ESTIMATES OF EARNINGS IMPACTS May 2003 , 2003 .

[12]  D. Rubin,et al.  Using Multivariate Matched Sampling and Regression Adjustment to Control Bias in Observational Studies , 1978 .

[13]  D. Rubin.  Matched Sampling for Causal Effects: The Use of Matched Sampling and Regression Adjustment to Remove Bias in Observational Studies , 1973 .

[14]  D. Rubin.  Matched Sampling for Causal Effects: Matching to Remove Bias in Observational Studies , 1973 .

[15]  Petra E. Todd,et al.  Matching As An Econometric Evaluation Estimator , 1998 .

[16]  Donald B. Rubin,et al.  MULTIVARIATE MATCHING METHODS THAT ARE EQUAL PERCENT BIAS REDUCING, I: SOME EXAMPLES , 1974 .

[17]  P. Rosenbaum.  The Role of a Second Control Group in an Observational Study , 1987 .

[18]  W. G. Cochran,et al.  Controlling Bias in Observational Studies: A Review. , 1974 .

[19]  Kosuke Imai,et al.  Causal Inference With General Treatment Regimes , 2004 .

[20]  Assessing Effects on Long-term Survival after Early Termination of Randomized Trials , 1999, Lifetime data analysis.

[21]  Roberto Agodini,et al.  Are Experiments the Only Option? A Look at Dropout Prevention Programs , 2004, Review of Economics and Statistics.

[22]  Herbert L. Smith.  6. Matching with Multiple Controls to Estimate Treatment Effects in Observational Studies , 1997 .

[23]  D. Rubin,et al.  The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects , 1983 .