. 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 7.

Scenario 3: 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 = 500				n = 200

Strategies	B	SE	RMSE	COV	B	SE	RMSE	COV
OM, Full	.000	.121	.121	93.9	.016	.187	.188	95.8
OM, MA	.037	.121	.126	93.0	.085	.188	.206	92.5
OM, BAC	.000	.121	.121	93.5	.020	.186	.188	95.2

IPW, 1: Full	.025	.212	.214	89.5	.062	.280	.287	91.9
IPW, 2: MA with *α^X*	.025	.209	.211	88.6	.077	.261	.272	88.7
IPW, 3: BAC with *α^X*	.024	.209	.210	89.2	.085	.250	.264	88.2
IPW, 4: MA with *α^Y*	.095	.138	.168	79.3	.165	.186	.249	76.5
IPW, 5: BAC with *α^Y*	.025	.209	.211	88.9	.076	.254	.265	88.7

DR, 1: Full	.003	.232	.232	94.3	.001	.319	.319	97.6
DR, 2: MA with (*α^X, α^Y*)	.000	.225	.225	93.7	.013	.285	.285	94.1
DR, 3: BAC with (*α^X, α^Y*)	−.003	.229	.229	93.9	.005	.266	.266	95.0
DR, 4: MA with (*α^Y, α^Y*)	.013	.131	.132	92.1	.051	.195	.201	88.8
DR, 5: BAC with (*α^Y, α^Y*)	−.002	.229	.229	93.9	.003	.271	.271	95.1

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