The use of propensity score matching in the evaluation of active labour market policies

By Alex Bryson, Richard Dorsett, S. Purdon. 2002

456 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/fb18b3b56adeb2939d178761949ce01e9ca1caee

How researchers see this paper

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

Citations in the corpus

Which covariates should be controlled in propensity score matching? Evidence from a simulation study (2013, background): “Most studies argue that only variables which affect both the program participation and outcomes should be included in the estimation of the propensity score (e.g. Heckman et al., 1998; Augurzky and Schmidt, 2001; Ravallion, 2001; Bryson et al., 2002; Lechner, 2002; Caliendo and Kopeinig, 2008).”
Do High Technology Acquirers Become More Innovative (2010, methodology): “Moreover, although instrumental variables and Heckman selection estimators can deal with selection-on-unobservables, the identification of suitable instruments is often a practical obstacle to successful implementation of these estimators (Bryson et al., 2002).”
Some Practical Guidance for the Implementation of Propensity Score Matching (2008, background): “It may sometimes be felt that some variables play a specifically important role in determining participation and outcome (Bryson et al., 2002).”
The differential effects of school tracking on psychometric intelligence : Do academic-track schools make students smarter? (2012, background): “This area of common support (AoCS) indicates the subgroups for which causal conclusions can be drawn (Bryson, Dorsett, & Purdon, 2002).”
Firms’ genetic characteristics and competence-enlarging strategies: A comparison between academic and non-academic high-tech start-ups (2012, methodology): “We did so by resorting to a variant of the propensity score method (Bryson et al., 2002; Imbens, 2004).”
Causal Effects of Inclusion on Postsecondary Education Outcomes of Individuals With High-Incidence Disabilities (2015, background): “Cases not in the region of common support were discarded to ensure that any combination of characteristics observed in the treated group were also present in the untreated group (Bryson et al., 2002; Caliendo & Kopeinig, 2008; Lechner, 2000).”