A comparison of doubly robust estimators of the mean with missing data

We compare by simulation a variety of doubly-robust (DR) estimators for estimating the mean of the outcome. An estimator is DR if it is consistent when either the regression model for the mean function or the propensity to respond is correctly specified.

Performance of different methods is compared in terms of root mean squared error of the estimates and width and coverage of confidence intervals or posterior credibility intervals in repeated samples. Overall, the DR methods tended to yield better inference than the incorrect model when either the propensity or mean model is correctly specified, but were less successful for small sample sizes, where the asymptotic DR property is less consequential.