Erratum to “Propensity score methods for road safety evaluation: Practical suggestions from a simulation study” [Accid. Anal. Prev. 158 (2021) 106200] (Accident Analysis and Prevention (2021) 158, (S0001457521002311), (10.1016/j.aap.2021.106200))

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

Research output: Journal article publicationComment/debate/erratumAcademic research

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 languageEnglish
Article number106257
JournalAccident Analysis and Prevention
Volume159
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Sep 2021

ASJC Scopus subject areas

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

Cite this