![Page 1: Implementing Matching Estimators for Average Treatment ... · (estimated) propensity score. Estimate average treatment ef-fect within each block as the difference in average outcomes](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022042910/5f402d9324acb33b894a30bd/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Implementing Matching Estimators for
Average Treatment Effects in STATA
Guido W. Imbens - Harvard University
West Coast Stata Users Group meeting, Los Angeles
October 26th, 2007
![Page 2: Implementing Matching Estimators for Average Treatment ... · (estimated) propensity score. Estimate average treatment ef-fect within each block as the difference in average outcomes](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022042910/5f402d9324acb33b894a30bd/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
General Motivation
Estimation of average effect of binary treatment, allowing for
general heterogeneity.
Use matching to eliminate bias that is present in simple com-
parison of means by treatment status.
1
![Page 3: Implementing Matching Estimators for Average Treatment ... · (estimated) propensity score. Estimate average treatment ef-fect within each block as the difference in average outcomes](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022042910/5f402d9324acb33b894a30bd/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Economic Applications
Labor market programs:
Ashenfelter (1978), Ashenfelter and Card (1985), Lalonde (1986),
Card and Sullivan (1989), Heckman and Hotz (1989), Fried-
lander and Robins (1995), Dehejia and Wahba (1999), Lechner
(1999), Heckman, Ichimura and Todd (1998).
Effect of Military service on Earnings:
Angrist (1998)
Effect of Family Composition:
Manski, McLanahan, Powers, Sandefur (1992)
Many other applications.
2
![Page 4: Implementing Matching Estimators for Average Treatment ... · (estimated) propensity score. Estimate average treatment ef-fect within each block as the difference in average outcomes](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022042910/5f402d9324acb33b894a30bd/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Topics
1. General Set Up /Notation
2. Estimators for Ave Treatm Effect under Unconf.
3. Dealing with Lack of Overlap in Covariate Distributions
4. Implementation in STATA Using nnmatch
5. Illustration using Lalonde Data
3
![Page 5: Implementing Matching Estimators for Average Treatment ... · (estimated) propensity score. Estimate average treatment ef-fect within each block as the difference in average outcomes](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022042910/5f402d9324acb33b894a30bd/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
1. Notation
N individuals/firms/units, indexed by i=1,. . . ,N,
Wi ∈ {0,1}: Binary treatment,
Yi(1): Potential outcome for unit i with treatment,
Yi(0): Potential outcome for unit i without the treatment,
Xi: k × 1 vector of covariates.
We observe {(Xi, Wi, Yi)}Ni=1, where
Yi =
{Yi(0) if Wi = 0,Yi(1) if Wi = 1.
Fundamental problem: we never observe Yi(0) and Yi(1) for
the same individual i.4
![Page 6: Implementing Matching Estimators for Average Treatment ... · (estimated) propensity score. Estimate average treatment ef-fect within each block as the difference in average outcomes](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022042910/5f402d9324acb33b894a30bd/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Notation (ctd)
μw(x) = E[Y (w)|X = x] (regression functions)
σ2w(x) = E[(Y (w) − μw(x))2|X = x] (conditional variances)
e(x) = E[W |X = x] = Pr(W = 1|X = x) (propensity score,
Rosenbaum and Rubin, 1983)
τ(x) = E[Y (1) − Y (0)|X = x] = μ1(x) − μ0(x) (conditional
average treatment effect)
τ = E[τ(X)] = E[Y (1)−Y (0)] Population Average Treatment Effect
5
![Page 7: Implementing Matching Estimators for Average Treatment ... · (estimated) propensity score. Estimate average treatment ef-fect within each block as the difference in average outcomes](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022042910/5f402d9324acb33b894a30bd/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Assumptions
I. Unconfoundedness
Y (0), Y (1) ⊥ W | X.
This form due to Rosenbaum and Rubin (1983). Like selection
on observables, or exogeneity. Suppose
Yi(0) = α + β′Xi + εi, Yi(1) = Yi(0) + τ,
then
Yi = α + τ · Wi + β′Xi + εi,
and unconfoundedness ⇐⇒ εi ⊥ Wi|Xi.
6
![Page 8: Implementing Matching Estimators for Average Treatment ... · (estimated) propensity score. Estimate average treatment ef-fect within each block as the difference in average outcomes](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022042910/5f402d9324acb33b894a30bd/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
II. Overlap
0 < Pr(W = 1|X) < 1.
For all X there are treated and control units.
![Page 9: Implementing Matching Estimators for Average Treatment ... · (estimated) propensity score. Estimate average treatment ef-fect within each block as the difference in average outcomes](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022042910/5f402d9324acb33b894a30bd/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Motivation for Assumptions
I. Descriptive statistics. After simple difference in mean out-
comes for treated and controls, it may be useful to compare
average outcomes adjusted for covariates.
II. Alternative: bounds (e.g., Manski, 1990)
7
![Page 10: Implementing Matching Estimators for Average Treatment ... · (estimated) propensity score. Estimate average treatment ef-fect within each block as the difference in average outcomes](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022042910/5f402d9324acb33b894a30bd/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
III. Unconfoundedness follows from some economic models.
Suppose individuals choose treatment w to maximize expected
utility, equal to outcome minus cost, Yi(w)− ci · w, conditional
on a set of covariates X:
Wi = argmaxw E[Yi(w)|Xi]− ci · w.
Suppose that costs ci differ between individuals, indep. of po-
tential outcomes. Then
(i) choices will vary between individuals with the same covari-
ates, and
(ii) conditional on the covariates X the choice is independent
of the potential outcomes.
8
![Page 11: Implementing Matching Estimators for Average Treatment ... · (estimated) propensity score. Estimate average treatment ef-fect within each block as the difference in average outcomes](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022042910/5f402d9324acb33b894a30bd/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Identification
τ(X) = E[Y (1)− Y (0)|X = x]
= E[Y (1)|X = x] − E[Y (0)|X = x]
By unconfoundedness this is equal to
E[Y (1)|W = 1,X = x] − E[Y (0)|W = 0, X = x]
= E[Y |W = 1,X = x] − E[Y |W = 0, X = x].
By the overlap assumption we can estimate both terms on therighthand side.
Then
τ = E[τ(X)].
9
![Page 12: Implementing Matching Estimators for Average Treatment ... · (estimated) propensity score. Estimate average treatment ef-fect within each block as the difference in average outcomes](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022042910/5f402d9324acb33b894a30bd/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Questions
How well can we estimate τ?
How do we estimate τ?
How do we do inference?
How do we assess assumptions (unconfoundedness/overlap)?
10
![Page 13: Implementing Matching Estimators for Average Treatment ... · (estimated) propensity score. Estimate average treatment ef-fect within each block as the difference in average outcomes](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022042910/5f402d9324acb33b894a30bd/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
2. Estimation of Average Treatment Effect under Un-
confoundedness
I. Regression estimators: estimate μw(x).
II. Propensity score estimators: estimate e(x)
III. Matching: match all units to units with similar values for
covariates and opposite treatment.
IV. Combining Regression with Propensity score and Matching
Methods.
11
![Page 14: Implementing Matching Estimators for Average Treatment ... · (estimated) propensity score. Estimate average treatment ef-fect within each block as the difference in average outcomes](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022042910/5f402d9324acb33b894a30bd/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Regression Estimators
Estimate μw(x) nonparametrically, and then
τ =1
N
N∑i=1
(μ1(Xi) − μ0(Xi)).
These estimators can reach efficiency bound.
12
![Page 15: Implementing Matching Estimators for Average Treatment ... · (estimated) propensity score. Estimate average treatment ef-fect within each block as the difference in average outcomes](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022042910/5f402d9324acb33b894a30bd/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Propensity Score Estimators
The key insight is that even with high-dimensional covariates,
one can remove all bias by conditioning on a scalar function of
the covariates, the propensity score. Formally, if
Y (0), Y (1) ⊥ W | X.
then
Y (0), Y (1) ⊥ W | e(X).
(e(x) = Pr(W = 1|X = x), Rosenbaum and Rubin, 1983)
Thus we can reduce the dimension of the conditioning set (if
we know the propensity score) to one.
13
![Page 16: Implementing Matching Estimators for Average Treatment ... · (estimated) propensity score. Estimate average treatment ef-fect within each block as the difference in average outcomes](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022042910/5f402d9324acb33b894a30bd/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Propensity Score Estimators (ctd)
Estimate e(x) nonparametrically, and then:
A. weighting (Hirano, Imbens, Ridder, 2003)
τ =1
N
N∑i=1
(Wi · Yi
e(Xi)− (1 − Wi) · Yi
1 − e(Xi)
).
This is based on the fact that
E
[W · Ye(X)
∣∣∣∣∣X = x
]= E
[W · Y (1)
e(X)
∣∣∣∣∣X = x
]
= E
[W
e(X)
∣∣∣∣∣X = x
]· E [Y (1)|X = x] = μ1(x).
14
![Page 17: Implementing Matching Estimators for Average Treatment ... · (estimated) propensity score. Estimate average treatment ef-fect within each block as the difference in average outcomes](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022042910/5f402d9324acb33b894a30bd/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Propensity Score Estimators (ctd)
B. Blocking (Rosenbaum and Rubin, 1983)
Divide sample in subsamples on the basis of the value of the
(estimated) propensity score. Estimate average treatment ef-
fect within each block as the difference in average outcomes
for treated and controls. Average within block estimates by
the proportion of observations in each block.
Using five blocks reduces bias by about 90% (Cochran, 1968),
under normality.
15
![Page 18: Implementing Matching Estimators for Average Treatment ... · (estimated) propensity score. Estimate average treatment ef-fect within each block as the difference in average outcomes](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022042910/5f402d9324acb33b894a30bd/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Matching
For each treated unit i, find untreated unit �(i) with
‖X�(i) − x‖ = min{l:Wl=0}
‖Xl − x‖,
and the same for all untreated observations. Define:
Yi(1) =
{Yi if Wi = 1,Y�(i) if Wi = 0,
Yi(0) =
{Yi if Wi = 0,Y�(i) if Wi = 1.
Then the simple matching estimator is:
τ sm =1
N
N∑i=1
(Yi(1)− Yi(0)
).
Note: since we match all units it is crucial that matching isdone with replacement.
16
![Page 19: Implementing Matching Estimators for Average Treatment ... · (estimated) propensity score. Estimate average treatment ef-fect within each block as the difference in average outcomes](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022042910/5f402d9324acb33b894a30bd/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Matching (ctd)
More generally, let JM(i) = {�1(i), ..., �M(i)} be the set of in-
dices for the nearest M matches for unit i.
Define:
Yi(1) =
{Yi if Wi = 1,∑
j∈JM(i) Yj/M if Wi = 0,
Yi(0) =
{Yi if Wi = 0,∑
j∈JM(i) Yj/M if Wi = 1.
Matching is generally not efficient (unless M → ∞), but effi-
ciency loss is small (variance is less than 1+1/(2M) times the
efficiency bound).
17
![Page 20: Implementing Matching Estimators for Average Treatment ... · (estimated) propensity score. Estimate average treatment ef-fect within each block as the difference in average outcomes](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022042910/5f402d9324acb33b894a30bd/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
The bias is of order Op(N−1/k), where k is the dimension of
the covariates.
Matching is consistent under weak smoothness conditions (does
not require higher order derivatives).
![Page 21: Implementing Matching Estimators for Average Treatment ... · (estimated) propensity score. Estimate average treatment ef-fect within each block as the difference in average outcomes](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022042910/5f402d9324acb33b894a30bd/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Matching and Regression
Estimate μw(x), and modify matching estimator to:
Yi(1) =
{Yi if Wi = 1,Y�(i) + μ1(Xi)− μ1(Xj(i)) if Wi = 0
Yi(0) =
{Yi if Wi = 0,Y�(i) + μ0(Xi)− μ0(Xj(i)) if Wi = 1
Then the bias corrected matching estimator is:
τ bcm =1
N
N∑i=1
(Yi(1) − Yi(0)
)
18
![Page 22: Implementing Matching Estimators for Average Treatment ... · (estimated) propensity score. Estimate average treatment ef-fect within each block as the difference in average outcomes](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022042910/5f402d9324acb33b894a30bd/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Variance Estimation
Matching estimators have the form
τ =N∑
i=1
(Wi · λi · Yi − (1 − Wi) · λi · Yi
),
(linear in outcomes) with weights
λi = λ(W,X).
λ(W, X) (known) is very non-smooth for matching estimators
and bootstrap is not valid as a result. (not just no second
order justification, but not valid asymptotically)
19
![Page 23: Implementing Matching Estimators for Average Treatment ... · (estimated) propensity score. Estimate average treatment ef-fect within each block as the difference in average outcomes](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022042910/5f402d9324acb33b894a30bd/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Variance conditional on W and X is
V (τ |W, X) =N∑
i=1
(Wi · λ2
i · σ21(Xi) + (1 − Wi) · λ2
i · σ20(Xi)
).
All parts known other than σ2w(x).
For each treated (control) find the closest treated (control)unit: h(i) = minj =i,Wj=Wi
‖Xi − Xj‖. Then use the difference
between their outcomes to estimate σ2(Xi) for this unit:
σ2Wi
(Xi) =1
2(Yi − Yh(i))
2.
Substitute into variance formula.
Even though σ2w(x) is not consistent, the estimator for V (τ |W, X)
is because it averages over all σ2w(Xi).
20
![Page 24: Implementing Matching Estimators for Average Treatment ... · (estimated) propensity score. Estimate average treatment ef-fect within each block as the difference in average outcomes](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022042910/5f402d9324acb33b894a30bd/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
3. Assessing Overlap
The first method to detect lack of overlap is to plot distribu-
tions of covariates by treatment groups. In the case with one
or two covariates one can do this directly. In high dimensional
cases, however, this becomes more difficult.
One can inspect pairs of marginal distributions by treatment
status, but these are not necessarily informative about lack of
overlap. It is possible that for each covariate the distribution
for the treatment and control groups are identical, even though
there are areas where the propensity score is zero or one.
A more direct method is to inspect the distribution of the
propensity score in both treatment groups, which can reveal
lack of overlap in the multivariate covariate distributions.
21
![Page 25: Implementing Matching Estimators for Average Treatment ... · (estimated) propensity score. Estimate average treatment ef-fect within each block as the difference in average outcomes](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022042910/5f402d9324acb33b894a30bd/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Selecting a Subsample with Overlap
Define average effects for subsamples A:
τ(A) =N∑
i=1
1{Xi ∈ A} · τ(Xi)/N∑
i=1
1{Xi ∈ A}.
The efficiency bound for τ(A), assuming homoskedasticity, as
σ2
q(A)· E
[1
e(X)+
1
1 − e(X)
∣∣∣∣∣X ∈ A
],
where q(A) = Pr(X ∈ A).
They derive the characterization for the set A that minimizes
the asymptotic variance .
22
![Page 26: Implementing Matching Estimators for Average Treatment ... · (estimated) propensity score. Estimate average treatment ef-fect within each block as the difference in average outcomes](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022042910/5f402d9324acb33b894a30bd/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
The optimal set has the form
A∗ = {x ∈ X|α ≤ e(X) ≤ 1 − α},
dropping observations with extreme values for the propensityscore, with the cutoff value α determined by the equation
1
α · (1 − α)=
2 · E
[1
e(X) · (1 − e(X))
∣∣∣∣∣ 1
e(X) · (1 − e(X))≤ 1
α · (1 − α)
].
Note that this subsample is selected solely on the basis of thejoint distribution of the treatment indicators and the covari-ates, and therefore does not introduce biases associated withselection based on the outcomes.
Calculations for Beta distributions for the propensity score sug-gest that α = 0.1 approximates the optimal set well in practice.
23
![Page 27: Implementing Matching Estimators for Average Treatment ... · (estimated) propensity score. Estimate average treatment ef-fect within each block as the difference in average outcomes](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022042910/5f402d9324acb33b894a30bd/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
4. Implementation in STATA Using nnmatch
Syntax:
nnmatch depvar treatvar varlist [weight] [if exp] [in range] [,
tc({ate|att|atc}) m(#) metric(maha|matname ) exact(varlistex)
biasadj(bias|varlistadj ) robusth(#) population level(#)
keep(filename) replace]
24
![Page 28: Implementing Matching Estimators for Average Treatment ... · (estimated) propensity score. Estimate average treatment ef-fect within each block as the difference in average outcomes](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022042910/5f402d9324acb33b894a30bd/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
nnmatch depvar treatvar varlist [weight] [if exp] [in range]
Basic command: treatvar must be binary variable
25
![Page 29: Implementing Matching Estimators for Average Treatment ... · (estimated) propensity score. Estimate average treatment ef-fect within each block as the difference in average outcomes](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022042910/5f402d9324acb33b894a30bd/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
option 1
tc({ate|att|atc})
One can est. the overall average effect of the treatment (ate),
or the average treatment effect for the treated units (att), or
the average effect for those who were not treated (atc)
26
![Page 30: Implementing Matching Estimators for Average Treatment ... · (estimated) propensity score. Estimate average treatment ef-fect within each block as the difference in average outcomes](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022042910/5f402d9324acb33b894a30bd/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
option 2
m(#)
The number of matches. In kernel matching estimators essen-
tially the key difference is that the number of matches increases
with the sample size. In practice there is little gain from using
more than 3-4 matches. Under homoskedasticity the variance
goes down proportional to 1+1/(2M), where M is the number
of matches.
27
![Page 31: Implementing Matching Estimators for Average Treatment ... · (estimated) propensity score. Estimate average treatment ef-fect within each block as the difference in average outcomes](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022042910/5f402d9324acb33b894a30bd/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
option 3
metric(maha|matname )
The distance metric. Two main options, the inverse of the
variances or mahalanobis distance. It can also be prespecified.
28
![Page 32: Implementing Matching Estimators for Average Treatment ... · (estimated) propensity score. Estimate average treatment ef-fect within each block as the difference in average outcomes](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022042910/5f402d9324acb33b894a30bd/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
option 4
exact(varlistex)
A special list of covariates receives extra weight (1000 times
the weight specified in met. Useful for binary covariates where
one wishes to match exactly.
29
![Page 33: Implementing Matching Estimators for Average Treatment ... · (estimated) propensity score. Estimate average treatment ef-fect within each block as the difference in average outcomes](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022042910/5f402d9324acb33b894a30bd/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
option 5
biasadj(bias|varlistadj )
In treatment and control group regression adjustment is used
based on the variables in this option. If bias(bias) is used, all
the variables used in the matching are used here again.
30
![Page 34: Implementing Matching Estimators for Average Treatment ... · (estimated) propensity score. Estimate average treatment ef-fect within each block as the difference in average outcomes](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022042910/5f402d9324acb33b894a30bd/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
option 6 robusth(#)
heteroskedasticity consistent variance estimation.
31
![Page 35: Implementing Matching Estimators for Average Treatment ... · (estimated) propensity score. Estimate average treatment ef-fect within each block as the difference in average outcomes](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022042910/5f402d9324acb33b894a30bd/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
option 7
population
sample average treatment effect
1
N
N∑i=1
(μ1(Xi) − μ0(Xi)) ,
versus population average treatment effect:
E[μ1(X) − μ0(X)].
The former can be estimated more precisely if there is hetero-
geneity in μ1(x) − μ0(x).
32
![Page 36: Implementing Matching Estimators for Average Treatment ... · (estimated) propensity score. Estimate average treatment ef-fect within each block as the difference in average outcomes](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022042910/5f402d9324acb33b894a30bd/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
option 8
level(#)
standard STATA option that specifies the confidence level for
confidence sets
33
![Page 37: Implementing Matching Estimators for Average Treatment ... · (estimated) propensity score. Estimate average treatment ef-fect within each block as the difference in average outcomes](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022042910/5f402d9324acb33b894a30bd/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
option 9
keep(filename) replace
Allows the user to recover output beyond the estimate and its
standard error.
A new data set is created with one observation per match, and
covariate information is kept for control and treated unit in
each match.
34
![Page 38: Implementing Matching Estimators for Average Treatment ... · (estimated) propensity score. Estimate average treatment ef-fect within each block as the difference in average outcomes](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022042910/5f402d9324acb33b894a30bd/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Examples
nnmatch re78 t age educ black hisp married re74 re75 u74 u75,
tc(att)
nnmatch re78 t age educ black hisp married re74 re75 u74 u75,
tc(att) m(4) exact(reo75) bias(bias) rob(4) keep(lalonde temp1)
replace
nnmatch re78 t age educ black hisp married re74 re75 u74 u75,
tc(att) m(4) exact(pscore) bias(bias) rob(4) keep(lalonde temp2)
replace
35
![Page 39: Implementing Matching Estimators for Average Treatment ... · (estimated) propensity score. Estimate average treatment ef-fect within each block as the difference in average outcomes](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022042910/5f402d9324acb33b894a30bd/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
5. Illustration with Lalonde Data, CPS Control Group:
Summary Statistics
bysort t: summ re75 married
36
![Page 40: Implementing Matching Estimators for Average Treatment ... · (estimated) propensity score. Estimate average treatment ef-fect within each block as the difference in average outcomes](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022042910/5f402d9324acb33b894a30bd/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
![Page 41: Implementing Matching Estimators for Average Treatment ... · (estimated) propensity score. Estimate average treatment ef-fect within each block as the difference in average outcomes](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022042910/5f402d9324acb33b894a30bd/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Estimation of Propensity Score
logit t age educ black hisp married re74 re75 reo74 reo75
predict pscore
bysort t: summ pscore
37
![Page 42: Implementing Matching Estimators for Average Treatment ... · (estimated) propensity score. Estimate average treatment ef-fect within each block as the difference in average outcomes](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022042910/5f402d9324acb33b894a30bd/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Checking Plausability of Unconfoundedness
nnmatch re75 t age educ black hisp married re74 u74, tc(att)
m(4) bias(bias) rob(4)
38
![Page 43: Implementing Matching Estimators for Average Treatment ... · (estimated) propensity score. Estimate average treatment ef-fect within each block as the difference in average outcomes](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022042910/5f402d9324acb33b894a30bd/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
![Page 44: Implementing Matching Estimators for Average Treatment ... · (estimated) propensity score. Estimate average treatment ef-fect within each block as the difference in average outcomes](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022042910/5f402d9324acb33b894a30bd/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Selecting Sample
keep if (pscore>0.1)&(pscore<0.9)
39
![Page 45: Implementing Matching Estimators for Average Treatment ... · (estimated) propensity score. Estimate average treatment ef-fect within each block as the difference in average outcomes](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022042910/5f402d9324acb33b894a30bd/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
![Page 46: Implementing Matching Estimators for Average Treatment ... · (estimated) propensity score. Estimate average treatment ef-fect within each block as the difference in average outcomes](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022042910/5f402d9324acb33b894a30bd/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
Checking Plausability of Unconfoundedness in Selected
Sample
nnmatch re75 t age educ black hisp married re74 u74, tc(att)
m(4) bias(bias) rob(4)
40
![Page 47: Implementing Matching Estimators for Average Treatment ... · (estimated) propensity score. Estimate average treatment ef-fect within each block as the difference in average outcomes](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022042910/5f402d9324acb33b894a30bd/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
![Page 48: Implementing Matching Estimators for Average Treatment ... · (estimated) propensity score. Estimate average treatment ef-fect within each block as the difference in average outcomes](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022042910/5f402d9324acb33b894a30bd/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
Final Estimates
nnmatch re78 t age educ black hisp married re74 re75 u74 u75,
tc(att) m(4) bias(bias) rob(4)
41
![Page 49: Implementing Matching Estimators for Average Treatment ... · (estimated) propensity score. Estimate average treatment ef-fect within each block as the difference in average outcomes](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022042910/5f402d9324acb33b894a30bd/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
![Page 50: Implementing Matching Estimators for Average Treatment ... · (estimated) propensity score. Estimate average treatment ef-fect within each block as the difference in average outcomes](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022042910/5f402d9324acb33b894a30bd/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
Cautionary note:
If there are few matching variables (all discrete), and many
ties, nnmatch can be very slow, and memory intensive.
One solution is to add a continuous matching variable, even if
it is unrelated to other things, to break the ties.
42