Matt, Thanks for the response, that helps. It does generate a couple of follow-up questions: First, in Stata, does the "cem" command work the same way as the "imb" command in calculating the multivariate L1 distance? Is there an option under the "breaks()" argument that I can specify where I can be sure it is using the user-specified cutoff points? Second, I'm not sure if I understand your point about using different cutoff points to measure imbalance than the ones used in the matching. I thought that one of the benefits of CEM was that the user could up front declare how much imbalance they are willing to tolerate by coarsening the variables as he/she saw fit. Assuming the researcher is coarsening the variables with sound reasons, why not use those same cutoff points to measure imbalance? One of the examples that you and your colleagues have used is coarsening a 'years of education' variable. If the researcher coarsens that variable in meaningful ways for matching (0-8; 9-12; 12-16; >16), and then measures imbalance using the scott or sturges break method where the cutpoints are changed to non-meaningful cutpoints (5.5; 7.5; 9.5; 11.5; etc), I'm unclear as to how that calculated L1 distance would be more valid than calculating the L1 distance with the user-set cutoff points. Any clarification would be greatly appreciated and thanks for your time. Evan On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 8:53 AM, Matt Blackwell <m.blackwell(a)rochester.edu>wrote;wrote:

Matt, Thank you for clarifying that, I understand now. Appreciate your time. Evan On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Matt Blackwell <m.blackwell(a)rochester.edu>wrote;wrote: