Can Propensity-Score Methods Match the Findings from a Random Assignment Evaluation of Mandatory Welfare-to-Work Programs?

By C. Michalopoulos, Howard S. Bloom, C. Hill. Review of Economics and Statistics, 2004

190 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Gender Studies, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ae9d3e0fecce33603b938615d2b65d53593aeb82

How researchers see this paper

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

In Economics and Econometrics

In Gender Studies

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

An Assessment of Propensity Score Matching as a Nonexperimental Impact Estimator (2005, methodology): “Unfortunately we cannot restrict our matches to households within the same state as in Michalopoulos et al. (2004) due to very small sample sizes.”
The Validity and Precision of the Comparative Interrupted Time-Series Design (2016, background): “Both Morgan and Winship (2015) and Heckman and Hotz (1989) point to the ways in which pretest information can be misleading, with Heckman and Hotz (1989) emphasizing caution when more recent pretest information cannot be well predicted from earlier years.”
Propensity Scores (2005, unknown): “Rosenbaum and Rubin (1983) introduced multivariate matching based on the propensity score, and Rubin and Thomas (1992, 1996) presented additional theoretic work.”
Labor Supply, School Attendance, and Remittances from International Migration: The Case of El Salvador (2006, methodology): “…significant (standard error of the difference calculated by bootstrap 12 This method is called matching with replacement, and according to Michalopoulos et al. (2003), it results in less precision than matching without replacement because of the reduced sample size produced by using some…”
Propensity score matching strategies for evaluating substance abuse services for child welfare clients (2006, background): “Michalopoulos et al. (2004) also note that propensity scores correct less well for studies in which the treated and nontreated groups are not from the same bailiwick and, therefore, are not exposed to the same ecological influences.”
What Can We Learn about Neighborhood Effects from the Moving to Opportunity Experiment?1 (2008, methodology): “2 For results derived from the interim MTO evaluation, see Orr et al. (2003), Kling, Ludwig and Katz (2005), Sanbonmatsu et al.”
Propensity score matching and variations on the balancing test (2011, unknown): “The introduction of propensity scores by Rosenbaum and Rubin (1983) was primarily an extension of Cochran (1968), who considered the problem of comparing the means of an outcome Y in”
From Temporary Help Jobs to Permanent Employment: What Can We Learn from Matching Estimators and Their Sensitivity? (2008, background): “(1997) and supported by the experimental evidence of Michalopoulos et al. (2004).”
Propensity Score Matching (2008, background): “Furthermore, both Michalopoulos et al. (2004) and Glazerman et al. (2003) outlined condi- tions that suggest that bias can be reduced by drawing comparison group members from the same labor market.”