JSM 2005 Online Program

Abstract #304677

This is the preliminary program for the 2005 Joint Statistical Meetings in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Currently included in this program is the "technical" program, schedule of invited, topic contributed, regular contributed and poster sessions; Continuing Education courses (August 7-10, 2005); and Committee and Business Meetings. This on-line program will be updated frequently to reflect the most current revisions.

To View the Program:
You may choose to view all activities of the program or just parts of it at any one time. All activities are arranged by date and time.

The views expressed here are those of the individual authors
and not necessarily those of the ASA or its board, officers, or staff.

The Program has labeled the meeting rooms with "letters" preceding the name of the room, designating in which facility the room is located:

Minneapolis Convention Center = “MCC” Hilton Minneapolis Hotel = “H” Hyatt Regency Minneapolis = “HY”

Back to main JSM 2005 Program page

Legend:

= Applied Session,

= Theme Session,

= Presenter

Activity Number:	190
Type:	Contributed
Date/Time:	Monday, August 8, 2005 : 2:00 PM to 3:50 PM
Sponsor:	General Methodology
Abstract - #304677
Title:	Full Matching with Propensity Scores
Author(s):	Ben B. Hansen*+
Companies:	University of Michigan
Address:	Statistics Department, Ann Arbor, MI, 48104, United States
Keywords:	caliper ; full matching with restrictions ; matching with multiple controls ; optimal matching ; propensity score
Abstract:	In such contexts as observational studies or the statistical matching of independent survey samples from a common population, one sets out to compare two groups on some measure, but must first adjust for between-group differences on other measures. Such adjustments are increasingly made with matching, most commonly pair matching or the matching of each member of the one group to k members, $k \geq 2$, of the other, and with propensity scores. Unlike covariance adjustment, matching has no use for individuals without comparable peers in the other group; matching rejects such individuals. However, pair matching and $1:k$ matching must reduce the groups still further, as there is usually no one number k permitting any and all units with counterparts similar to them on a propensity score to be placed into one, and only one, 1:k matched set. This reduction in sample size can be substantial. Modern techniques such as optimal full matching (Rosenbaum 1991, Hansen 2004, Hansen and Klopfer 2005) avoid this problem, but involve new tuning parameters. At first a nuisance, the new parameters turn out to enrich the connection with the propensity score.

The address information is for the authors that have a + after their name.
Authors who are presenting talks have a * after their name.

Back to the full JSM 2005 program