Dataset Information

Multiply robust matching estimators of average and quantile treatment effects.

ABSTRACT: Propensity score matching has been a long-standing tradition for handling confounding in causal inference, however requiring stringent model assumptions. In this article, we propose novel double score matching (DSM) utilizing both the propensity score and prognostic score. To gain the protection of possible model misspecification, we posit multiple candidate models for each score. We show that the de-biasing DSM estimator achieves the multiple robustness property in that it is consistent if any one of the score models is correctly specified. We characterize the asymptotic distribution for the DSM estimator requiring only one correct model specification based on the martingale representations of the matching estimators and theory for local Normal experiments. We also provide a two-stage replication method for variance estimation and extend DSM for quantile estimation. Simulation demonstrates DSM outperforms single score matching and prevailing multiply robust weighting estimators in the presence of extreme propensity scores.

SUBMITTER: Yang S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9949738 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Multiply robust matching estimators of average and quantile treatment effects.

Yang Shu S Zhang Yunshu Y

Scandinavian journal of statistics, theory and applications 20220313 1

Propensity score matching has been a long-standing tradition for handling confounding in causal inference, however requiring stringent model assumptions. In this article, we propose novel double score matching (DSM) utilizing both the propensity score and prognostic score. To gain the protection of possible model misspecification, we posit multiple candidate models for each score. We show that the de-biasing DSM estimator achieves the multiple robustness property in that it is consistent if any ...[more]

PMID: 36844478

Similar Datasets

Project description:Commonly used semiparametric estimators of causal effects specify parametric models for the propensity score (PS) and the conditional outcome. An example is an augmented inverse probability weighting (IPW) estimator, frequently referred to as a doubly robust estimator, because it is consistent if at least one of the two models is correctly specified. However, in many observational studies, the role of the parametric models is often not to provide a representation of the data-generating process but rather to facilitate the adjustment for confounding, making the assumption of at least one true model unlikely to hold. In this paper, we propose a crude analytical approach to study the large-sample bias of estimators when the models are assumed to be approximations of the data-generating process, namely, when all models are misspecified. We apply our approach to three prototypical estimators of the average causal effect, two IPW estimators, using a misspecified PS model, and an augmented IPW (AIPW) estimator, using misspecified models for the outcome regression (OR) and the PS. For the two IPW estimators, we show that normalization, in addition to having a smaller variance, also offers some protection against bias due to model misspecification. To analyze the question of when the use of two misspecified models is better than one we derive necessary and sufficient conditions for when the AIPW estimator has a smaller bias than a simple IPW estimator and when it has a smaller bias than an IPW estimator with normalized weights. If the misspecification of the outcome model is moderate, the comparisons of the biases of the IPW and AIPW estimators show that the AIPW estimator has a smaller bias than the IPW estimators. However, all biases include a scaling with the PS-model error and we suggest caution in modeling the PS whenever such a model is involved. For numerical and finite sample illustrations, we include three simulation studies and corresponding approximations of the large-sample biases. In a dataset from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, we estimate the effect of smoking on blood lead levels.

Dataset Information

Multiply robust matching estimators of average and quantile treatment effects.

Publications

Multiply robust matching estimators of average and quantile treatment effects.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets