<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<record
    xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
    xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim http://www.loc.gov/standards/marcxml/schema/MARC21slim.xsd"
    xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim">

  <leader>01959nam a22002057a 4500</leader>
  <controlfield tag="005">20240508071140.0</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="008">240508b        |||||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d</controlfield>
  <datafield tag="022" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">0022-0973  </subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="100" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Lee, Yongseok </subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="245" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Propensity Score Matching with Cross-Classified Data Structures Walter </subfield>
    <subfield code="b">: A Comparison of Methods (Journal Article)</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="260" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Philadelphia, USA </subfield>
    <subfield code="b">: Taylor and Francis Group and Routledge </subfield>
    <subfield code="c">,May 2024</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">359-376p.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="440" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">The Journal of Experimental Education  </subfield>
    <subfield code="v">Volume 92: Number 2, 2024</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">***______{For Hard Copy, Please visit Library.}________***

</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Abstract: In the current study, we compare propensity score (PS) matching methods for data with a cross-classified structure, where each individual is clustered within more than one group, but the groups are not hierarchically organized. Through a Monte Carlo simulation study, we compared sequential cluster matching (SCM), preferential within cluster matching (PWCM), greedy matching (GM), and optimal full matching (OFM), using propensity scores from four different models. The results indicated that the four matching methods performed well when PSs were estimated with logistic regression containing both level-1 and level-2 covariates. When the level-2 covariates were omitted in the logistic regression PS model, matching methods resulted in biased treatment effect estimates. However, omission of level-2 covariates did not result in biased estimates when the PS model was a logistic cross-classified random effects model (CCREM). SCM and PWCM outperformed GM and OFM with a logistic CCREM that included level-1 and level-2 covariates.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Cross-classified data| cross-classified random effects model| one-to-many nearest neighbor matching| propensity scores| sequential cluster matching</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="700" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Leite, L. | Leroux, Audrey J. </subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="856" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2023.2164843</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="942" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="c">PER</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="0">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="1">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="4">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="7">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">RIEBPL</subfield>
    <subfield code="b">RIEBPL</subfield>
    <subfield code="d">2024-05-08</subfield>
    <subfield code="l">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="r">2024-05-08 07:11:58</subfield>
    <subfield code="w">2024-05-08</subfield>
    <subfield code="y">PER</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="999" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="c">45756</subfield>
    <subfield code="d">45755</subfield>
  </datafield>
</record>
