In recent years, to increase the robustness of methodology sections of accounting research, applying quasi-experimental methods has become a popular approach in archival-empirical research of top-tier accounting journals. The purpose of this study is to discuss the usefulness of the two most robust methods, including difference-in-differences (DD) and propensity score matching (PSM). This paper discusses DD and PSM design and reviews DD and PSM\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s use in articles of American Accounting Associations’ journals in recent years. In addition to a simple explanation of DD and PSM, this research provides a list of credible empirical accounting studies that have used these two methods. The research also explores the reasons for using the two methods in the empirical-archival studies of accounting and shows that in addition to extracting a causal relationship, the most important reason for using the two methods is to reduce the potential concerns surrounding the \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"omitted variables\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"and \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"heterogeneity of treatment and control groups\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\". Overall, by highlighting the importance and application of the DD and the PSM, this research can help the methodology sections\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\' robustness in the empirical-archive accounting research that focuses on causal relationships and provide a simple and practical guide, especially for Ph.D. students in accounting.

Keywords