. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 Jul 20.

Published in final edited form as: Stat Med. 2014 Mar 5;33(16):2797–2813. doi: 10.1002/sim.6123

Table 6.

Scenario 2: Estimated Bias (B), standard error (SE), root-mean-square error (RMSE) and percentage (%) coverage (COV) of causal effect estimators based on an outcome modeling (OM), an inverse-probability-weighting (IPW) and a doubly-robust (DR) approach (with different strategies)

	n = 2000				n = 1000				n = 500				n = 200

Strategies	B	SE	RMSE	COV	B	SE	RMSE	COV	B	SE	RMSE	COV	B	SE	RMSE	COV
OM, Full	.002	.049	.049	95.7	−.002	.073	.073	95.2	.000	.102	.102	94.6	−.002	.152	.152	96.6
OM, MA	.010	.047	.048	95.0	.013	.070	.071	94.6	.017	.096	.097	94.7	.018	.141	.142	96.6

OM, BAC	.002	.049	.049	95.7	−.002	.073	.073	95.2	.001	.102	.102	94.5	.001	.151	.151	96.5
IPW, 1: Full	.002	.087	.087	94.6	.007	.115	.116	94.5	.008	.174	.174	95.1	.011	.267	.268	96.3
IPW, 2: MA with *α^X*	.001	.109	.109	94.1	.006	.142	.142	95.3	.006	.207	.207	95.3	.046	.301	.305	95.9
IPW, 3: BAC with *α^X*	.001	.109	.109	94.1	.006	.142	.142	95.4	.003	.205	.205	95.5	.104	.276	.295	93.4
IPW, 4: MA with *α^Y*	.035	.057	.067	86.7	.044	.077	.089	89.5	.054	.107	.119	90.8	.059	.166	.176	94.8
IPW, 5: BAC with *α^Y*	.002	.087	.087	94.6	.007	.115	.116	94.5	.010	.174	.174	94.9	.045	.239	.244	95.2

DR, 1: Full	.003	.053	.053	95.3	.000	.079	.079	95.4	.000	.114	.114	94.4	.003	.173	.173	96.8
DR, 2: MA with (*α^X, α^Y*)	.003	.053	.053	95.2	.000	.079	.079	95.3	.000	.114	.114	94.3	.005	.167	.167	95.8
DR, 3: BAC with (*α^X, α^Y*)	.003	.053	.053	95.3	.000	.079	.079	95.4	.000	.113	.113	94.3	.003	.162	.162	96.0
DR, 4: MA with (*α^Y, α^Y*)	.007	.048	.048	94.7	.009	.070	.071	93.4	.013	.098	.098	93.6	.015	.144	.145	95.4
DR, 5: BAC with (*α^Y, α^Y*)	.003	.053	.053	95.3	.000	.079	.079	95.4	.000	.113	.113	94.5	.004	.165	.165	96.1

Refer to Tables 2 and 3 for strategies’ details and abbreviations. The nominal coverage rate is taken to be 95%.