Robust Post-Matching Inference

Alberto Abadie, Jann Spiess

Journal of the American Statistical Association · 2020 · 161 citations · 27 references

Concepts

TL;DR

Nearest‑neighbor matching balances treatment and control groups and reduces reliance on parametric assumptions, yet the matching step is frequently omitted when computing standard errors and confidence intervals. The study investigates whether standard errors that ignore the matching step remain valid and proposes robust alternatives when they do not. The authors find that ignoring the matching step yields asymptotically valid standard errors only when matching is done without replacement and the regression model is correctly specified, but not otherwise; they also show that consistent treatment‑effect estimation does not require correct specification and that two simple alternatives produce robust approximations, as confirmed by simulation and an empirical example. Supplementary materials for this article are available online.

Abstract

Nearest-neighbor matching is a popular nonparametric tool to create balance between treatment and control groups in observational studies. As a preprocessing step before regression, matching reduces the dependence on parametric modeling assumptions. In current empirical practice, however, the matching step is often ignored in the calculation of standard errors and confidence intervals. In this article, we show that ignoring the matching step results in asymptotically valid standard errors if matching is done without replacement and the regression model is correctly specified relative to the population regression function of the outcome variable on the treatment variable and all the covariates used for matching. However, standard errors that ignore the matching step are not valid if matching is conducted with replacement or, more crucially, if the second step regression model is misspecified in the sense indicated above. Moreover, correct specification of the regression model is not required for consistent estimation of treatment effects with matched data. We show that two easily implementable alternatives produce approximations to the distribution of the post-matching estimator that are robust to misspecification. A simulation study and an empirical example demonstrate the empirical relevance of our results. Supplementary materials for this article are available online.

References

27