Estimation of Causal Effects using Propensity Score Weighting: An Application to Data on Right Heart Catheterization

  • Keisuke Hirano
  • Guido W. Imbens


We consider methods for estimating causal effects of treatments when treatment assignment is unconfounded with outcomes conditional on a possibly large set of covariates. Robins and Rotnitzky (1995) suggested combining regression adjustment with weighting based on the propensity score (Rosenbaum and Rubin, 1983). We adopt this approach, allowing for a flexible specification of both the propensity score and the regression function. We apply these methods to data on the effects of right heart catheterization (RHC) studied in Connors et al (1996), and we find that our estimator gives stable estimates over a wide range of values for the two parameters governing the selection of variables.

casual inference propensity score treatment effects right heart catheterization variable selection 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. A. Abadie and G. Imbens, “Simple and bias-corrected matching estimators for average treatment effects,” unpublished manuscript, Department of Economics, UC Berkeley, 2001.Google Scholar
  2. A. F. Connors, et al., “The effectiveness of right heart catheterization in the initial care of critically ill patients,” Jornal of the American Medical Association, 276, pp. 889-897, 2001.Google Scholar
  3. J. Hahn, “On the role of the propensity score in efficient semiparametric estimation of average treatment effects,” Econometrica, 66, pp. 315-331, 1998.Google Scholar
  4. J. Heckman, H. Ichimura and P. Todd, “Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator: evidence from evaluating a job training program,” Review of Economic Studies, 64, pp. 605-654, 1997.Google Scholar
  5. J. Heckman, H. Ichimura and P. Todd, “Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator,” Review of Economic Studies, 65, pp. 261-294, 1998.Google Scholar
  6. K. Hirano, G. Imbens and G. Ridder, “Efficient estimation of average treatment effects using the estimated propensity score,” NBER Technical Working Paper 251, 2000.Google Scholar
  7. D. Horvitz and D. Thompson, “A generalization of sampling without replacement from a finite population,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 47, pp. 663-685, 1952.Google Scholar
  8. A. Miller, Subset Selection in Regression, Chapman and Hall, London, 1990.Google Scholar
  9. D. J. Murphy and L. E. Cluff, “SUPPORT: Study to understand prognoses and preferences for outcomes and risks of treatments-study design,” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 43, pp. 1S-123S, 1990.Google Scholar
  10. W. Newey, “The asymptotic variance of semiparametric estimators,” Econometrica, 62, pp. 1349-1382, 1994.Google Scholar
  11. J. Robins, “Marginal structural models versus structural nested models as tools for causal inference,” to appear: AAAI Technical Report Series, Spring 1998 Symposium on Prospects for a Common Sense Theory of Causation, Stanford, CA, 1998.Google Scholar
  12. J. Robins and Y. Ritov, “Towards a curse of dimensionality appropriate (CODA) asymptotic theory for semiparametric models,” Statistics in Medicine, 16, pp. 285-319, 1997.Google Scholar
  13. J. Robins and A. Rotnitzky, “Semiparametric efficiency in multivariate regression models with missing data,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90(429), pp. 122-129, 1995.Google Scholar
  14. J. Robins, A. Rotnitzky and L. Zhao, “Analysis of semiparametric regression models for repeated outcomes in the presence of missing data,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90(429), pp. 106-121, 1995.Google Scholar
  15. P. Rosenbaum, Observational Studies, Springer Verlag, 1985. ESTIMATION OF CAUSAL EFFECTS USING PROPENSITY SCORE WEIGHTING 277Google Scholar
  16. P. Rosenbaum, “Model-based direct adjustment,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 82, pp. 387-394, 1987.Google Scholar
  17. P. Rosenbaum and D. Rubin, “The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects,” Biometrika, 70(1), pp. 41-55, 1983.Google Scholar
  18. P. Rosenbaum and D. Rubin, “Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 79, pp. 516-524, 1985.Google Scholar
  19. A. Rotnitzky and J. Robins, “Semiparametric regression estimation in the presence of dependent censoring,” Biometrika, 82(4), pp. 805-820, 1995.Google Scholar
  20. D. Rubin and N. Thomas, “Affinely invariant matching methods with ellipsoidal distributions,” Annals of Statistics 20(2), pp. 1079-1093, 1992.Google Scholar
  21. D. Rubin and N. Thomas, “Characterizing the effect of matching using linear propensity score methods with normal distributions,” Biometrika, 79, pp. 797-809, 1992.Google Scholar
  22. D. Rubin and N. Thomas, “Matching using estimated propensity scores: Relating theory to practice,” Biometrics, 52, pp. 249-264, 1996. 278 HIRANO AND IMBENSGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Keisuke Hirano
    • 1
  • Guido W. Imbens
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of MiamiCoral Gables
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeley

Personalised recommendations