Evaluating continuous training programmes by using the generalized propensity score

205 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Entropy Balancing for Continuous Treatments (2020, background): “Examples include the evaluation of job training programs with varying duration (Choe, Flores-Lagunes, and Lee 2015; Flores et al. 2012; Kluve et al. 2012; Li and Fraser 2015) or quality (Galdo and Chong 2012) and subsidies of different magnitude to firms or entire regions (Becker, Egger, and von Ehr”
Evaluating the impact of improved maize varieties on food security in Rural Tanzania: Evidence from a continuous treatment approach (2014, unknown): “As indicated above, the main purpose of estimating the GPS is to ensure that the covariates are balanced across treatment categories; so that as long as sufficient covariate balance is achieved, the exact procedure for estimating the GPS is of secondary importance (Kluve et al. 2012).”
Estimating the Effects of Length of Exposure to Instruction in a Training Program: The Case of Job Corps (2012, methodology): “However, contrary to recent parametric applications of the GPS in a continuous treatment setting (Hirano and Imbens, 2004; Kluve et al., 2007; Mitnik, 2008; Bia and Mattei, 2008), our estimators are semiparametric in the sense that we control for the estimated GPS nonparametrically in the estimation”
Migration and Trade (2012, unknown): “Applications of the generalized - continuous - propensity score deal with labor market programs (see Kluve et al. 2007), regional transfer schemes (see Becker et al. 2010), and FDI (see Du and Girma, 2009).”