Erratum to “Propensity score methods for road safety evaluation: Practical suggestions from a simulation study" [Accid. Anal. Prev. 158 (2021) 106200

Yingheng Zhang; Haojie Li; N. N. Sze; Gang Ren

doi:10.1016/j.aap.2021.106257

Erratum to “Propensity score methods for road safety evaluation: Practical suggestions from a simulation study" [Accid. Anal. Prev. 158 (2021) 106200

Yingheng Zhang, Haojie Li, N. N. Sze, Gang Ren

Research output: Journal article publication › Comment/debate/erratum

Abstract

The publisher regrets some errors in the published paper. The publisher would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused. Updated version is as below: Page 3, first formula: [Formula presented] Page 3, second formula: [Formula presented] Page 3, third formula (overlap): [Formula presented] Page 3 section 2.2, derivations: (1) Because [Formula presented] (i.e., observed outcomes) is [Formula presented] when [Formula presented], we have [Formula presented].(2) By iterated expectations, we have [Formula presented].(3) By unconfoundedness, we have [Formula presented].(4) And because [Formula presented], the right-hand side cancels to give [Formula presented], from which we have [Formula presented] as desired (Williamson et al., 2012). Similarly, [Formula presented]. Page 3 section 2.2, ATT estimation: [Formula presented] Page 3 section 2.2 last paragraph, King and Nielsen (2019): Reference: King, G., Nielsen, R., 2019. Why Propensity Scores Should Not Be Used for Matching. Political Analysis, 27(4), 435–454. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2019.11.

Original language	English
Article number	106257
Pages (from-to)	106257
Number of pages	1
Journal	Accident Analysis and Prevention
Volume	159
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2021.106257
Publication status	Published - 1 Sept 2021

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Human Factors and Ergonomics
Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality
Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

More information

10.1016/j.aap.2021.106257

Cite this

@article{bd2300b7af3c4343b5662f678068d706,

title = "Erratum to “Propensity score methods for road safety evaluation: Practical suggestions from a simulation study{"} [Accid. Anal. Prev. 158 (2021) 106200",

abstract = "The publisher regrets some errors in the published paper. The publisher would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused. Updated version is as below: Page 3, first formula: [Formula presented] Page 3, second formula: [Formula presented] Page 3, third formula (overlap): [Formula presented] Page 3 section 2.2, derivations: (1) Because [Formula presented] (i.e., observed outcomes) is [Formula presented] when [Formula presented], we have [Formula presented].(2) By iterated expectations, we have [Formula presented].(3) By unconfoundedness, we have [Formula presented].(4) And because [Formula presented], the right-hand side cancels to give [Formula presented], from which we have [Formula presented] as desired (Williamson et al., 2012). Similarly, [Formula presented]. Page 3 section 2.2, ATT estimation: [Formula presented] Page 3 section 2.2 last paragraph, King and Nielsen (2019): Reference: King, G., Nielsen, R., 2019. Why Propensity Scores Should Not Be Used for Matching. Political Analysis, 27(4), 435–454. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2019.11.",

author = "Yingheng Zhang and Haojie Li and Sze, {N. N.} and Gang Ren",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2021 Elsevier Ltd",

year = "2021",

month = sep,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1016/j.aap.2021.106257",

language = "English",

volume = "159",

pages = "106257",

journal = "Accident Analysis and Prevention",

issn = "0001-4575",

publisher = "Elsevier Ltd",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Erratum to “Propensity score methods for road safety evaluation

T2 - Practical suggestions from a simulation study" [Accid. Anal. Prev. 158 (2021) 106200

AU - Zhang, Yingheng

AU - Li, Haojie

AU - Sze, N. N.

AU - Ren, Gang

PY - 2021/9/1

Y1 - 2021/9/1

N2 - The publisher regrets some errors in the published paper. The publisher would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused. Updated version is as below: Page 3, first formula: [Formula presented] Page 3, second formula: [Formula presented] Page 3, third formula (overlap): [Formula presented] Page 3 section 2.2, derivations: (1) Because [Formula presented] (i.e., observed outcomes) is [Formula presented] when [Formula presented], we have [Formula presented].(2) By iterated expectations, we have [Formula presented].(3) By unconfoundedness, we have [Formula presented].(4) And because [Formula presented], the right-hand side cancels to give [Formula presented], from which we have [Formula presented] as desired (Williamson et al., 2012). Similarly, [Formula presented]. Page 3 section 2.2, ATT estimation: [Formula presented] Page 3 section 2.2 last paragraph, King and Nielsen (2019): Reference: King, G., Nielsen, R., 2019. Why Propensity Scores Should Not Be Used for Matching. Political Analysis, 27(4), 435–454. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2019.11.

AB - The publisher regrets some errors in the published paper. The publisher would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused. Updated version is as below: Page 3, first formula: [Formula presented] Page 3, second formula: [Formula presented] Page 3, third formula (overlap): [Formula presented] Page 3 section 2.2, derivations: (1) Because [Formula presented] (i.e., observed outcomes) is [Formula presented] when [Formula presented], we have [Formula presented].(2) By iterated expectations, we have [Formula presented].(3) By unconfoundedness, we have [Formula presented].(4) And because [Formula presented], the right-hand side cancels to give [Formula presented], from which we have [Formula presented] as desired (Williamson et al., 2012). Similarly, [Formula presented]. Page 3 section 2.2, ATT estimation: [Formula presented] Page 3 section 2.2 last paragraph, King and Nielsen (2019): Reference: King, G., Nielsen, R., 2019. Why Propensity Scores Should Not Be Used for Matching. Political Analysis, 27(4), 435–454. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2019.11.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85107978222&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.aap.2021.106257

DO - 10.1016/j.aap.2021.106257

M3 - Comment/debate/erratum

AN - SCOPUS:85107978222

SN - 0001-4575

VL - 159

SP - 106257

JO - Accident Analysis and Prevention

JF - Accident Analysis and Prevention

M1 - 106257

ER -

Erratum to “Propensity score methods for road safety evaluation: Practical suggestions from a simulation study" [Accid. Anal. Prev. 158 (2021) 106200

Abstract

ASJC Scopus subject areas

UN SDGs

More information

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this