The Relative Ability of Different Propensity Score Methods to Balance Measured Covariates Between Treated and Untreated Subjects in Observational Studies

Peter C. Austin
Additional contact information
Peter C. Austin: Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, peter.austin@ices.on.ca, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Department of Health Management, Policy and Evaluation, University of Toronto

Medical Decision Making, 2009, vol. 29, issue 6, 661-677

Abstract: The propensity score is a balancing score: conditional on the propensity score, treated and untreated subjects have the same distribution of observed baseline characteristics. Four methods of using the propensity score have been described in the literature: stratification on the propensity score, propensity score matching, inverse probability of treatment weighting using the propensity score, and covariate adjustment using the propensity score. However, the relative ability of these methods to reduce systematic differences between treated and untreated subjects has not been examined. The authors used an empirical case study and Monte Carlo simulations to examine the relative ability of the 4 methods to balance baseline covariates between treated and untreated subjects. They used standardized differences in the propensity score matched sample and in the weighted sample. For stratification on the propensity score, within-quintile standardized differences were computed comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treated and untreated subjects within the same quintile of the propensity score. These quintile-specific standardized differences were then averaged across the quintiles. For covariate adjustment, the authors used the weighted conditional standardized absolute difference to compare balance between treated and untreated subjects. In both the empirical case study and in the Monte Carlo simulations, they found that matching on the propensity score and weighting using the inverse probability of treatment eliminated a greater degree of the systematic differences between treated and untreated subjects compared with the other 2 methods. In the Monte Carlo simulations, propensity score matching tended to have either comparable or marginally superior performance compared with propensity-score weighting.

Keywords: Propensity score; balance; matching; propensity score matching; covariate adjustment with the propensity score; inverse probability of treatment weighting; stratification on the propensity score; confounding. (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2009
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (6)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X09341755 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:medema:v:29:y:2009:i:6:p:661-677

DOI: 10.1177/0272989X09341755

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Medical Decision Making
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().