Assessing the sensitivity of methods for estimating principal causal effects

Statistical Methods in Medical Research

Volumn 24, Issue 6, 2015, Pages 657-674

  Stuart, Elizabeth A ^a   Jo, Booil ^b  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^b STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

complier average causal effect; intermediate outcomes; non compliance; principal stratification; propensity scores

Indexed keywords

JOINT; MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD METHOD; PROPENSITY SCORE; CAUSALITY; HUMAN; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

CAUSALITY; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; HUMANS; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PROPENSITY SCORE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84948395048     PISSN: 09622802     EISSN: 14770334     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0962280211421840     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Frangakis CE, Rubin DB,. Principal stratification in causal inference. Biometrics 2002; 58: 21-29.
2. Jo B,. Estimation of intervention effects with noncompliance: alternative model specifications. J Educ Behav Stat 2002; 27 (4): 385-409.
3. Jo B, Stuart EA,. On the use of propensity scores in principal causal effect estimation. Stat Med 2009; 28: 2857-2875.
4. MacKinnon DP. Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 2008.
5. Angrist JD, Imbens GW, Rubin DB,. Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. J Am Stat Assoc 1996; 91 (434): 444-455.
6. Jo B, Stuart EA, MacKinnon DP, Vinokur AD,. The use of propensity scores in mediation analysis. Multivar Behav Res 2011; 46 (3): 425-452.
7. Jin H, Rubin DB,. Principal stratification for causal inference with extended partial compliance. J Am Stat Assoc 2008; 103 (481): 101-111.
8. Vinokur AD, Price RH, Caplan RD,. From field experiments to program implementation: assessing the potential outcomes of an experimental intervention program for unemployed persons. Am J Commun Psychol 1991; 19: 543-562.
9. Little RJA, Yau LHY,. Statistical techniques for analyzing data from prevention trials: treatment of no-shows using Rubin's causal model. Psychol Methods 1998; 3 (2): 147-159.
10. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB,. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983; 70: 41-55.
11. Rubin DB,. Bayesian inference for causal effects: the role of randomization. Ann Stat 1978; 6: 34-58.
12. Bloom HS,. Accounting for no-shows in experimental evaluation designs. Eval Rev 1984; 8 (2): 225-246.
13. Imbens GW, Rubin DB,. Bayesian inference for causal effects in randomized experiments with noncompliance. Ann Stat 1997; 25 (1): 305-327.
14. Imbens GW, Rubin DB,. Estimating outcome distributions for compliers in instrumental variable models. Rev Econ Studies 1997; 64: 555-574.
15. Jo B, Muthén BO, Modeling of intervention effects with noncompliance: a latent variable modeling approach for randomized trials. In: Marcoulides GA, Schumacker RE, (eds). Advanced structural equation modeling: new developments and techniques, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2001, pp. 57-87.
16. Jo B, Asparouhov T, Muthén BO, Ialongo NS, Brown CH,. Cluster randomized trials with treatment noncompliance. Psychol Methods 2008; 13: 1-18.
17. Stuart EA, Rubin DB, Best practices in quasi-experimental designs: Matching methods for causal inference. In: Osborne J, (ed). Best practices in quantitative methods, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2007, pp. 155-176.
18. Joffe MM, Small D, Hsu C,. Defining and estimating intervention effects for groups that will develop an auxiliary outcome. Stat Sci 2007; 22 (1): 74-97.
19. Hill J, Waldfogel J, Brooks-Gunn J,. Sustained effects of high participation in an early intervention for low-birth-weight premature infants. Develop Psychol 2003; 39 (4): 730-744.
20. Follmann DA,. On the effect of treatment among would-be treatment compliers: An analysis of the multiple risk factor intervention trial. J Am Stat Assoc 2000; 95 (452): 1101-1109.
21. Stuart EA,. Matching Methods for Causal Inference: A review and a look forward. Stat Sci 2010; 25 (1): 1-21.
22. Muthén LK, Muthén BO,. Mplus User's Guide, Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
23. R Development Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Available from: http://www.cran.r-project.org. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2008.
24. Ho DE, Imai K, King G, Stuart EA,. MatchIt: Nonparametric preprocessing for parametric causal inference. J Stat Software 2011; 42 (8): 1-28.
25. Derogatis LR, Lipman RS, Rickles K, Uhlenuth EH, Coyi L, The Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL). In: Pichot P, (ed). Psychological measurements in psychopharmacology: Modern problems in pharmacopsychiatry, Basel: Karger, 1974, pp. 79-110.
26. Jo B, Vinokur A,. Sensitivity analysis and bounding of causal effects with alternative identifying assumptions. J Educ Behav Stat 2011; 36 (4): 415-440.
27. Fournier JC, DeRubeis RJ, Hollon SD, Dimidjian S, Amsterdam JD, Shelton RC, et al. Antidepressant drug effects and depression severity: a patient-level meta-analysis. J Am Med Assoc 2010; 303 (1): 47-53.
28. Jo B,. Bias mechanisms in intention-to-treat analysis with data subject to treatment noncompliance and missing outcomes. J Edu Behav Stat 2008; 33 (2): 158-185.
29. Hirano K, Imbens GW, Rubin DB, Zhou X,. Assessing the effect of an influenza vaccine in an encouragement design with covariates. Biostatistics 2000; 1: 69-88.