Home > Publications . Search All . Browse All . Country . Browse PSC Pubs . PSC Report Series

PSC In The News

RSS Feed icon

Thompson says America must "unchoose" policies that have led to mass incarceration

Axinn says new data on campus rape will "allow students to see for themselves the full extent of this problem"

Frey says white population is growing in Detroit and other large cities


Susan Murphy to speak at U-M kickoff for data science initiative, Oct 6, Rackham

Andrew Goodman-Bacon, former trainee, wins 2015 Nevins Prize for best dissertation in economic history

Deirdre Bloome wins ASA award for work on racial inequality and intergenerational transmission

Bob Willis awarded 2015 Jacob Mincer Award for Lifetime Contributions to the Field of Labor Economics

Next Brown Bag

Monday, Oct 5 at noon, 6050 ISR
Colter Mitchell: Biological consequences of poverty

Ben Hansen photo

Full matching in an observational study of coaching for the SAT

Publication Abstract

Hansen, Ben. 2004. "Full matching in an observational study of coaching for the SAT." Journal of the American Statistical Association, 99(467): 609-618.

Among matching techniques for observational studies, full matching is in principle the best, in the sense that its alignment of comparable treated and control subjects is as good as that of any alternate method, and potentially much better. This article evaluates the practical performance of full matching for the first time, modifying it in order to minimize variance as well as bias and then using it to compare coached and uncoached takers of the SAT. In this new version, with restrictions on the ratio of treated subjects to controls within matched sets, full matching makes use of many more observations than does pair matching, but achieves far closer matches than does matching with k≥ 2 controls. Prior to matching, the coached and uncoached groups are separated on the propensity score by 1.1 SDs. Full matching reduces this separation to 1% or 2% of an SD. In older literature comparing matching and regression, Cochran expressed doubts that any method of adjustment could substantially reduce observed bias of this magnitude.

To accommodate missing data, regression-based analyses by ETS researchers rejected a subset of the available sample that differed significantly from the subsample they analyzed. Full matching on the propensity score handles the same problem simply and without rejecting observations. In addition, it eases the detection and handling of nonconstancy of treatment effects, which the regression-based analyses had obscured, and it makes fuller use of covariate information. It estimates a somewhat larger effect of coaching on the math score than did ETS's methods.

DOI:10.1198/016214504000000647 (Full Text)

Browse | Search : All Pubs | Next