5
$\begingroup$

I remember seeing a paper that ranked causal statistical models, published by some research body, by quality in terms of generalizability or some similar facet(s). This would be a "hierarchy of evidence" type of list. The models included difference in difference (ranked highly), instrumental variables, and other techniques of exploiting natural experiments, pseudo-randomization, etc.

Obviously, depending on context (assumptions, data availability, academic field), different models are applicable in different situations. With that caveat, the models were ranked, and I would like to find it again to review the argumentation used.

Although I am discussing a specific publication, I am interested in any literature related to general comparisons or rankings of causal statistical models.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Answers to this question may be relevant. $\endgroup$ Oct 25, 2015 at 19:10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The only way I could see some ranking work is based on the plausibility of identification assumptions. However, this is more context based than method based, so unless somebody is ranking methods based on a specific scientific context/subject, I find it very hard to believe the ranking would be meaningful. $\endgroup$ Aug 21, 2017 at 21:53
  • $\begingroup$ This article comparing the generalizability of causal measures may be interesting to you. $\endgroup$
    – Scriddie
    Jun 5, 2023 at 11:04

0

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.