Propensity Score Matching:

A Primer for Educational Researchers

Forrest Lane, Ph.D.

Department of Educational Studies & Research
 Aims
• Recognize the implications for self-selection and
non-randomization in quasi-experimental
research,
• Understand key terms and theory behind the
propensity score matching,
• Identify strategies and resources for
implementing propensity score matching into
research.
 Overview
• Theoretical Framework
• Propensity Score Matching Process
• Implications & Practical Guidance
 Introduction
Experimental design has historically been
considered the “gold standard” for causal inference
(West, 2009).
 Introduction
The problem is that experimental design may not be possible in
practice
There are many ethical, political, or financial arguments against
them (Cook, 2002). Some suggest experimental designs:
– Can rarely be mounted in schools
– Sacrifice internal for external validity
– Creates a rational
– decision-making model that does not describe how schools
actually make decisions
 Introduction
“Interventions conducted under laboratory
conditions with selective participant criteria do not
necessarily generalized well in real world of human
services” (Levant & Hasan, 2008, p. 658).
 Quasi-Experiment Alternative
Allow for group comparisons but do not allow for
causal inferences
Groups may systematically differ from one another
based on number of covariates and therefore
cannot be directly compared.
– Non-randomized studies may lead to effect size bias
when interpreting treatment effects.
 Problem
Increasing calls for evidence of a program’s or
intervention’s effectiveness.
– Psychology: Bauer (2007); Collins, Leffingwell, &
Belar (2007); Levant & Hasan (2008)
– Education: Rudd & Johnson (2008); Slavin (2002)

Quasi-experiments may not meet this aim

Experimental Quasi-Experimental

• Better estimates of • Biased estimates of

treatment effects with treatment effects with
limited generalizability greater generalizability
 Counterfactuals
• Is a conceptual framework for investigating
causality.
• Two well-known frameworks include the
approaches taken by Campbell (1957) and Rubin
(1974; 2005)
DIMENSION CAMPBELL RUBIN

Domain Psychology, Education Medicine, Economics

Outcome Definition Constructs Operations

Key Feature Threats to Validity Precise Assumptions

Approach Inductive, Scientific Deductive, Mathematical

Primary Methods Prevention of Threat Assumption Checking,

Sensitivity Analysis

Causal Effect Estimate Direction Only Exact Magnitude

Role of Measurement Strong Emphasis Less Emphasis

*Table taken from West and Thoemmes (2010)

 Propensity Score Matching
• Propensity score matching (PSM) is a statistical
technique that aims to controls for self-selection
bias and thus extend causal inference into non-
randomized or quasi-experimental studies
(Rosenbaum & Rubin, 1983).
• Grounded in the Rubin (1794; 2005)
counterfactual framework.
 Propensity Score Matching
• The method uses statistical techniques to reduce
differences in the likelihood of group assignment
by matching participants on their likelihood of
group assignment.
• PSM assumes, once groups are well matched,
systematic differences between groups have been
removed and causal inference can be extended.
 Propensity Score Matching
“For more than two decades, advanced statistical
methods known as propensity score (PS)
techniques, have been available to aid in the
evaluation of cause-effect hypotheses in
observational studies. None the less, PS techniques
have not yet been used widely in psychological
research” (Harder, Stuart, & Anthony, 2010).
 Articles Using PSM

Figure taken from Thoemmes & Kim (2011)

 PSM in the Literature
• Grunwald & Mayhew (2008) examined the development of
moral reasoning in young adults and demonstrated a
significant reduction is the overestimation of effects.
• Morgan (2001) used propensity score matching and
demonstrated the effect of private school education on
math and reading achievement is actually larger than
findings in non-matched samples.
• Other similar studies have been demonstrated in
economics (Dehejia & Wahba, 2002), medicine (Schafer &
Kang, 2008), and sociology (Morgan & Harding, 2006).
 Defining a Propensity Score
• Defined as the conditional probability of assignment
to a particular treatment or control given a set of
covariates (Rosenbaum & Rubin, 1983).
 Propensity Scores
• Propensity scores incorporate covariates into a
singular scalar variable ranging from 0 to 1
which can then be used to match participants in
treatment groups.
• Once matched, treatments effects should be
more reflective of the true effect and analogous
to interpretation of randomized designs
 Propensity Score Matching Process

Estimation
Estimation/ Evaluation
Conditionin Balance of
Modeling of Hidden
g Strategy Evaluation Treatment
Strategy Bias
Effects
 PSM Assumptions
• Strongly ignorable treatment assignment
– Assumes all systematic differences in group
assignment have been removed (Rosenbaum, 2010).
– matching techniques control only for systematic
differences due to observable covariates, not
unobservable covariates (Guo & Fraser, 2010)
 Random Assignment
• To apply the Rubin counterfactual model, the
assumption of strongly ignorable treatment
assignment must be met.

• In other words, conditional on a set of

covariates, the outcome for a participant must be
independent of treatment assignment (Guo &
Fraser, 2010)
 Propensity Score Matching Process

Evaluation
Estimation/ Post-hoc
Conditionin Balance of
Modeling Test for
g Strategy Evaluation Treatment
Strategy Hidden Bias
Effects
 Propensity Score Estimation
• The most commonly used method is logistic
regression (Thoemmes & Kim, 2011).
• Other methods include probit regression,
classification trees or ensemble methods such as
bagging, boosted regression trees, and random
forest (Shadish, Luellen, & Clark, 2006).
 Modeling Strategy
• Non-Parsimonious
– All theoretically related variables included in PS
estimation
• Parsimonious
– Some variables can be ignored as a source of potential
bias
• Hierarchical Regression
• Stepwise Regression
 Conditioning Strategy
• Matching
– One-to-one, One-to-many, Caliper
• Stratification
– stratification across quintiles may reduce approximately
90% of bias due to covariates (Shadish, Luellen, & Clark,
2005)
• Regression Adjustment
– The PS may be used as a covariate in ANCOVA but must
meet assumptions of the analysis.
 Balance Evaluation
• The standardized difference in the mean
propensity score in the two groups should be
near zero (d < .20)
• The ratio of the variance of the propensity score
and continuous covariates in the two groups
should be near one, preferably between 0.80 and
1.25
 Balance Evaluation
• Multivariate Measures
– Hansen and Bowers (2008) provide one test that assesses
simultaneously whether any variable or linear
combination of variables was significantly unbalanced
after matching” using a distribution (Thoemmes, 2012, p.
9).

– A measure , may also be used which assesses the balance

of all covariates including interaction effects (Iacus, King,
& Porro, 2011)
 Estimating Treatment Effects
• Treatment effects can be estimated on the
outcome variable(s) by testing in newly matched
sample through a t-test or appropriate multi-
group equivalent analysis.
 Common Support Region
• The shared overlap of between groups on the
distribution of propensity scores
• The common support region defines where the
estimation of causal effects may be inferred.
 Hidden Bias
• Two participants measured on the same
covariates (x), should have the same probability
(P) of group assignment.
– When true, the ratio of the probability for group
assignment relative to non-group assignment should
be close to one.
– If false, probability of group assignment differs by a
multiplier or factor of Γ
 Hidden Bias
• Rosenbaum (2010) suggested a Wilcoxon signed
rank test may be used to statistically test the
impact of various levels of on the interpretation
of the treatment effect (i.e., sensitivity analysis).
 Heuristic Scenario
• The content area reading strategies program (CARS)
was implement within Florida schools to improve
basic reading levels skills.
• Students were taught three animal science lessons
from the state approved curriculum and included
anatomy and physiology, nutrition, and reproduction.
– The lessons were taught over the course of 23 school days, or
nearly 1600 minutes of instruction” (Park & Osborne, 2007,
p. 57).
 Heuristic Scenario
• The problem is that students could not be
randomly assigned to treatment and comparison
groups.
• Park and Osborne (2007) also suggested student
pre-test scores, grade level, grade point average,
gender, ethnicity, and standardized reading
levels were statistically significant predictors of
agricultural posttest scores ( = .67).
 Arguments Against ANCOVA
• ANCOVA is inappropriate when differences
between groups on covariates are large (Hinkle,
Wiersma, & Jurs, 2003).
• The outcome variable in ACOVA is an adjusted
score which makes interpretation difficult
• Potential mismatch between the research
question and analytic technique or Type IV error
(Fraas, Newman, & Pool, 2007).
 Arguments Against ANCOVA
• The use of ANCOVA and propensity score
matching may result in a different interpretation
of the treatment effect (Fraas, Newman, & Pool,
2007).
 Method
• Logistic regression was used to estimate propensity scores
• One-to-one matching was the conducted using a caliper
width of 0.25 standard deviations of the logit
transformation of the propensity score (Stuart & Rubin,
2007).
– Matched pairs exceeding the caliper width were discarded from
the analysis.
• Balanced was then examined on continuous variables
using NHST and effect sizes.
 Pre-Matching Treatment Effect
N M SD t df p d
Non Participants 16 0.06 0.57 2.231 28 .034 .805
Participants 14 0.64 0.84

Biased
Treatment Effect

0 (0.06) (0.64) 1
Comparison Treatment
 Likelihood of Receiving Treatment
N M SD t df p d
Non Participants 16 .33 .32 2.989 28 .006 1.12
Participants 14 .62 .24

Amount of Bias

0 (.36) (.59) 1
Comparison Treatment
Unlikely to be in Likely to be in the
treatment group treatment group
 Matching Algorithms
• R
– MatchIt in R (Ho, Imai, King, and Stuart, 2007)
– Matching (Sekhon, 2011)
• Stata
– PSMATCH2 (Leuven & Sianesi, 2004)
– Pscore (Becker & Ichino, 2002)
• SAS
– SUGI 214-26 “GREEDY” (D’Agostino, 1998),
• SPSS
– PSM Matching_2.spd (Thoemmes, 2012)
Control Propensity Logit Treatment Propensity Logit
d (Caliper)
ID Score Score ID Score Score

2 .453 -0.190 26 .450 -0.200 -0.010

9 .201 -1.380 19 .195 -1.420 -0.030
12 .564 0.260 24 .575 0.300 0.040
11 .497 -0.010 29 .456 -0.180 -0.140
16 .081 -2.430 28 .111 -2.080 0.300
8 .533 0.130 23 .631 0.530 0.340
5 .817 1.500 18 .662 0.670 -0.700
10 .500 0.000 27 .730 0.990 0.850
6 .395 -0.430 21 .750 1.100 1.300
 Assessing Balance
• The standardized difference in the mean
propensity score in the two groups should be
near zero (d < .20)
• The ratio of the variance of the propensity score
in the two groups should be near one, preferably
between 0.80 and 1.25 (Rubin, 2001).
 Pre-Matching Group Differences
N M SD t df p d
Non Participants 16 .36 .22 2.989 28 .006 1.12
Participants 14 .59 .22

Amount of Bias

0 (.36) (.59) 1
Comparison Treatment
Unlikely to be in Likely to be in the
treatment group treatment group
 Post-Matching Group Differences
N M SD t df p d
Non Participants 7 .44 .24 0.930 12 .930 .05
Participants 7 .46 .25

Amount of Bias

0 (.44) (.46) 1

Unlikely to be in Likely to be in the

treatment group treatment group
 Pre-Matching Treatment Effect
N M SD t df p d
Non Participants 16 0.06 0.57 2.231 28 .034 .805
Participants 14 0.64 0.84

Biased
Treatment Effect

0 (0.06) (0.64) 1
Comparison Treatment
 Post-Matching Treatment Effect
N M SD t df p d
Non Participants 7 0.14 0.69 0.630 12 .539 .338
Participants 7 0.43 0.98

Unbiased
Treatment Effect

(0.14) (0.43)
0 1
 Practical Guidance
• Some participants will be discarded as a result of
poor matching.
• As a result, larger samples are generally needed for
PSM (Luellen, Shadish, & Clark, 2005; Yanovitzky,
Zanutto, & Hornik, 2005).
– How many participants are needed is unclear (Luellen et
al., 2005, p. 548).
– N >100 may be too small (Akers, 2010), particularly as
prediction of group assignment improves (Lane, 2011).
 Practical Guidance
• Examine improvement in prediction relative to the
null as there is some evidence to suggest this
reduces model sensitivity to hidden bias (Lane,
2011).
– Pearson goodness of fit, Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-
fit test and pseudo have also been suggested for use in
evaluating propensity scores (Guo & Fraser, 2010)
– I index (Huberty & Holmes, 1983; Huberty & Lowman,
2000) may also provide a measure of effect size.
 Practical Guidance
• Other methods beyond logistic regression are
available when estimating propensity scores
including classification trees, bagging, and
boosted regression trees(Austin, 2008; Shadish
et al., 2006).
• Each of these estimation methods were created
to help better inform covariate selection.
 Practical Guidance
• Matching strategies seem to vary greatly in the
literature.
• However, other strategies exist (e.g., one-to-
many matching) that may retain more
participants, improving statistical power and
perhaps generalizability of treatment results.
 Useful Literature
• Caliendo and Kopeinig (2008) and Stuart (2010)
provide a thorough discussion on the
implementation of different matching methods.
• Thoemmes and Kim (2011) present a systematic
review of the various strategies employed by
social science researchers using PSM.
• Guo and Fraser (2010) provide an entire text
dedicated to propensity score matching.
 References
Akers, A. (2010). Determination of the optimal number of strata for bias reduction in
propensity score matching (Doctoral dissertation, University of North Texas).
ProQuest, AAT 3417726.
Bauer, R. M. (2007). Evidence-based practice in psychology: Implications for research
and research training. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 63, 685-694.
Becker, S. O., & Ichino, A. (2002). Estimation of average treatment effects based on
propensity scores. The stata Journal, 2, 358-377.
Caliendo, M., & Kopeinig, S. (2008). Some practical guidance for the implementation of
propensity score matching. Journal of Economic Surveys, 22, 31-72.
Campbell, D. T. (1957). Factors relevant to the validity of experiments in social settings.
Psychological Bulletin, 54, 297-312.
 References
Collins, F. L., Leffingwell, T. R., Belar, C. D. (2007). Teaching evidence-based practice:
Implications for psychology. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 63, 657-670.
Cook, T. D. (2002). Randomized experiments in educational policy research: A critical
examination of the reasons the educational evaluation community has offered for
not doing them. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 175-199.
D’Agostino, R. B. (1998). Tutorial in biostatistics: Propensity score methods for bias
reduction in the comparison of treatment to a non-randomized control group.
Statistics in Medicine, 17, 2265-2281.
Dehejia, R. H., & Wahba, S. (2002). Propensity score-matching methods for
nonexperimental causal studies. Review of Economics and Statistics, 84, 151-161.
Fraas, J. W., Newman, I., & Pool, S. (2007). The use of propensity score analysis to
address isues associated with the use of adjusted means produced by analysis of
covariance. Multiple Linear Regression Viewpoints, 33, 23-31.
 References
Guo, S., & Frasher, M. W. (2010). Propensity score analysis: Statistical methods and
applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Grunwald, H.E. & Mayhew, M.J. (2008). The use of propensity scores in identifying a
comparison group in a quasi-experimental design: Moral reasoning development as
an outcome. Research in Higher Education, 49(8), 758-775.
Hansen, B., & Bowers., J. (2008). Covariate balance in simple, stratified and clustered
comparative studies. Statistical Science, 23, 219-236.
Harder, V. S., Stuart, E. A., & Anthony, J. C. (2010). Propensity score techniques and the
assessment of measured covariate balance to test causal associations in psychological
research. Psychological Methods, 15, 234-249.
Ho D., Imai, K., King, G.,& Stuart, E. (2007). Matching as nonparametric preprocessing
for reducing model dependence in parametric causal inference. Political Analysis, 15,
199-236.
 References
Huberty, C. J, & Holmes, S. E. (1983). Two-group comparisons and univariate classification.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 43, 15-26.
Huberty, C. J., & Lowman, L .L. (2000). Group overlap as a basis for effect size. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 60, 543-563.
Iacus, S. M., King, G., & Porro, G. (2011). Causal inference without balance checking:
Coarsened exacted matching. Political Analysis, 20, 1-24.
Lane, F., C. (2011). The use of effect size estimates to evaluate covariate selection, group
separation, and sensitivity to hidden bias in propensity score matching (University of
North Texas). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 115. (1041249363).
Leuven, E., & Sianesi, B. (2004). PSMATCH2: Stata module to perform full Mahalanobis and
propensity score matching, common support graphing, and covariate imbalance testing,
Statistical Software Components S432001, Boston College Department of Economics.
Levant, R. F., & Hasan, N. T. (2008). Evidence-based practice in psychology. Professional
Psychology: Research and Practice, 39, 658-662.
 References
Morgan, S. L. (2001). Counterfactuals, causal effect heterogeneity, and the Catholic school
effect on learning. Sociology of Education, 74, 341–374.
Morgan, S., & Harding, D. (2006).Matching estimators of causal effects: Prospects and
pitfalls in theory and practice. Sociological Methods & Research, 35(1), 3-60. DOI:
10.1177/0049124106289164.
Painter, J. (2009). Jordan institute for families: Virtual research community. Retrieved
from http://ssw.unc.edu/VRC/Lectures/index.htm.
Park, T. D., & Osborne, E. (2007). Reading strategy instruction in secondary agricultural
science courses: An initial perspective. Career and Technical Education Research, 32,
45-75.
Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983b). The central role of the propensity score in
observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70, 41-55.
 References
Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1984). Reducing bias in observational studies using
subclassification on the propensity score. Journal of the American Statistical
Association, 79(387), 516-524
Rosenbaum, P. R. (2010). Design of observational studies. New York: Springer.
Rubin, D. B. (1974). Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and
nonrandomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 688-701.
Rubin, D. B. (2001). Using propensity scores to help design observational studies:
application to the tobacco litigation. Health Services & Outcomes Research
Methodology 2, 169–188.
Rubin, D. B. (2005). Causal inference using potential outcomes: Design, modeling,
decisions. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 100, 322-331.
Rudd, A. & Johnson, R. B. (2008). Lessons learned from the use of randomized and
quasi-experimental field designs for the evaluation of educational programs. Studies
in Educational Evaluation, 34, 180-188.
 References
Schafer, J. L., & Kang, J. (2008). Average causal effects from nonrandomized studies: A
practical guide and simulated example. Psychological Methods, 13(4), 279-313.
Schneider, B., Carnoy, M., Kilpatrick, J., Schmidt, W. H., & Shavelson, R. J. (2007).
Estimating causal effects using experimental and observational designs (report from
the Governing Board of the American Educational Research Association Grants
Program). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Sekhon, J. S. (2011). Multivariate and propensity score matching software with automated
balance optimization: The matching package for R. Journal of Statistical Software,
42, 1-52.
Shadish W. R., Luellen J. K., & Clark M. H. (2005). Propensity scores: An introduction
and experimental test. Evaluation Review, 29(6), 530-558.
 References
Shadish W. R., Luellen J. K., & Clark M. H. (2006). Propensity scores and quasi-
experiments: A testimony to the practical side of Lee Sechrest. In: Bootzin R.R.,
McKnight P.E. (Eds.), Strengthening research methodology: Psychological
measurement and evaluation. American Psychological Association: Washington, DC,
143–157.
Slavin, R. E. (2002). Evidence-based education policies: Transforming educational
practice and research. Educational Researcher, 31, 15-21.
Stuart, E. A. (2010). Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward.
Statistical Science, 25, 1-21.
Thoemmes, F. J., & Kim, E. S. (2011). A systematic review of propensity score methods in
the social sciences. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46, 90-118.
doi:10.1080/00273171.2011.540475
 References
Thoemmes, F., (2012). Propensity score matching in SPSS. Available at
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1201/1201.6385.pdf.
West, S.G. (2009). Alternatives to randomized experiments. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 18, 299-304.
Yanovitzky, T., Zanutto, E., & Hornik, R. (2005). Estimating causal effects of public health
education campaigns using propensity score methodology. Evaluation and Program
Planning, 28(2), 209-220. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2005.01.004