. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Dec 10.

Published in final edited form as: Stat Med. 2015 Aug 2;34(28):3637–3647. doi: 10.1002/sim.6618

Table 3.

Comparison of root mean square error of the estimates of mean Y between various weighting adjustments under four response propensity models in the simulation study: Y₁|X, Z ~ Norm(0, 1), Y₂|X, Z ~ Norm(X, 1), and Y₃|X, Z ~ Norm(X + Z, 1).

Response model	R₁			R₂			R₃			R₄
Outcome	Y₁	Y₂	Y₃	Y₁	Y₂	Y₃	Y₁	Y₂	Y₃	Y₁	Y₂	Y₃
NULL	.046	.091	.108	.046	.373	.355	.028	.317	.409	.039	.157	.172
CHAID_[_x_]	.046	.090	.108	.055	.106	.099	.034	.170	.248	.042	.094	.082
CHAID_[_x,z_]	.046	.090	.108	.056	.109	.099	.043	.098	.088	.038	.072	.077
RP_[_x_]	.046	.085	.105	.055	.104	.091	.031	.161	.235	.040	.091	.081
RP_[_x,z_]	.046	.077	.090	.056	.091	.084	.058	.090	.061	.039	.070	.073
RPS_[_x_]	.046	.086	.105	.055	.107	.091	.034	.175	.237	.040	.081	.078
RPS_[_x,z_]	.046	.080	.094	.054	.098	.085	.044	.103	.057	.038	.070	.078
Hybrid_[_x,z_]	.046	.084	.104	.057	.102	.088	.044	.097	.075	.038	.067	.075