A Primer on Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting and Marginal Structural Models

Emerging Adulthood

Volumn 4, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 40-59

  Thoemmes, Felix ^a   Ong, Anthony D ^a  

^a Cornell University ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

causal inference; confounding; inverse probability of treatment weights (IPTWs); marginal structural models (MSMs); propensity scores

Indexed keywords

EID: 84954508678     PISSN: 21676968     EISSN: 21676984     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/2167696815621645     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. J.D.AngristJ.Pischke (2008). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist’s companion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
2. P.Austin (2008). A critical appraisal of propensity-score matching in the medical literature between 1996 and 2003. Statistics in Medicine, 27, 2037–2049.
3. P.Austin (2011). An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46, 399–424.
4. R.Berk (2004). Regression analysis: A constructive critique. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5. B.BrayD.AlmirallR.ZimmermanD.LynamS.Murphy (2006). Assessing the total effect of time-varying predictors in prevention research. Prevention Science, 7, 1–17. 10.1007/s11121-005-0023-0
6. M.CaliendoS.Kopeinig (2008). Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching. Journal of Economic Surveys, 22, 31–72.
7. W.CochranD.Rubin (1973). Controlling bias in observational studies: A review. Sankhyā: The Indian Journal of Statistics, Series A (1961-2002), 35, 417–446. 10.2307/25049893
8. D.CoffmanW.Zhong (2012). Assessing mediation using marginal structural models in the presence of confounding and moderation. Psychological Methods, 17, 642–664.
9. S.ColeM.Hernán (2008). Constructing inverse probability weights for marginal structural models. American Journal of Epidemiology, 168, 656–664.
10. S.ColeR.PlattE.SchistermanH.ChuD.WestreichD.RichardsonC.Poole (2010). Illustrating bias due to conditioning on a collider. International Journal of Epidemiology, 39, 417–420.
11. R.CookS.Weisberg (2009). Applied regression including computing and graphics. New York, NY: Wiley.
12. C.CrowsonL.SchenckA.GreenE.AtkinsonT.Therneau (2013). The basics of propensity scoring and marginal structural models (Technical Report #84), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, 1–37.
13. R.D’Agostino (1998). Tutorial in biostatistics: Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Statistics in Medicine, 17, 2265–2281.
14. R.DanielS.CousensB.De StavolaM.KenwardJ.Sterne (2013). Methods for dealing with time-dependent confounding. Statistics in Medicine, 32, 1584–1618. 10.1002/sim.5686
15. R.DanielB.De StavolaS.Cousens (2011). gformula: Estimating causal effects in the presence of time-varying confounding or mediation using the g-computation formula. Stata Journal, 11, 479–517.
16. R.DehejiaS.Wahba (2002). Propensity score-matching methods for nonexperimental causal studies. Review of Economics and Statistics, 84, 151–161.
17. S.Greenland (2003). Quantifying biases in causal models: Classical confounding vs collider-stratification bias. Epidemiology, 14, 300–306.
18. S.GreenlandJ.PearlJ.Robins (1999). Causal diagrams for epidemiologic research. Epidemiology, 10, 37–48. 10.2307/3702180
19. S.GreenlandJ.Robins (1986). Identifiability, exchangeability, and epidemiological confounding. International Journal of Epidemiology, 15, 413–419. 10.1093/ije/15.3.413
20. S.GruberM.J.van der Laan (2009). Targeted maximum likelihood estimation: A gentle introduction(U.C. Berkeley Division of Biostatistics Working Paper Series. Working Paper 252)Berkeley California: Berkeley Electronic Press.
21. S.GruberM.J.van der Laan (2011). tmle: An R package for targeted maximum likelihood estimation (Technical Report 275). Division of Biostatistics, University of California, Berkeley.
22. R.GutmanD.B.Rubin (2015). Estimation of causal effects of binary treatments in unconfounded studies with one continuous covariate. Statistical Methods in Medical Research. 10.1177/0962280215570722
23. M.HernánB.BrumbackJ.Robins (2000). Marginal structural models to estimate the causal effect of zidovudine on the survival of HIV-positive men. Epidemiology, 11, 561–570.
24. J.HoganT.Lancaster (2004). Instrumental variables and inverse probability weighting for causal inference from longitudinal observational studies. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 13, 17–48. 10.1191/0962280204sm351ra
25. D.HorvitzD.Thompson (1952). A generalization of sampling without replacement from a finite universe. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 47, 663–685.
26. P.Huber (1967). The behavior of maximum likelihood estimates under non-standard conditions. In (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability (pp. 221–233). Berkeley, California: University of California Press.
27. S.IacusG.KingG.Porro (2011). Causal inference without balance checking: Coarsened exact matching. Political Analysis, 20, 1–24.
28. K.ImaiM.Ratkovic (2014). Covariate balancing propensity score. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 76, 243–263. 10.1111/rssb.12027
29. J.JacksonF.ThoemmesK.JonkmannO.LüdtkeU.Trautwein (2012). Military training and personality trait development: Does the military make the man, or does the man make the military?Psychological Science, 23, 270–277. 10.1177/0956797611423545
30. K.JonkmannF.ThoemmesO.LüdtkeU.Trautwein (2014). Personality traits and living arrangements in young adulthood: Selection and socialization. Developmental Psychology, 50, 683–698.
31. J.KangJ.Schafer (2007). Demystifying double robustness: A comparison of alternative strategies for estimating a population mean from incomplete data. Statistical Science, 22, 523–539.
32. G.KingL.Zeng (2006). The dangers of extreme counterfactuals. Political Analysis, 14, 131–159. 10.1093/pan/mpj004
33. B.LeeJ.LesslerE.Stuart (2010). Improving propensity score weighting using machine learning. Statistics in Medicine, 29, 337–346. 10.1002/sim.3782
34. J.LuellenW.ShadishM.Clark (2005). Propensity scores: An introduction and experimental test. Evaluation Review, 29, 530–558. 10.1177/0193841x05275596
35. D.McCaffreyG.RidgewayA.Morral (2004). Propensity score estimation with boosted regression for evaluating causal effects in observational studies. Psychological Methods, 9, 403–425.
36. K.MohanJ.PearlJ.Tian (2013). Graphical models for inference with missing data. In (Eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (pp. 1277–1285). Red Hook, NY: Curran Associates.
37. J.Pearl (2009). Letter to the editor: Remarks on the method of propensity score. Statistics in Medicine, 28, 1415–1424.
38. J.Robins (1986). A new approach to causal inference in mortality studies with a sustained exposure period—Application to control of the healthy worker survivor effect. Mathematical Modelling, 7, 1393–1512.
39. J.RobinsM.HernánB.Brumback (2000). Marginal structural models and causal inference in epidemiology. Epidemiology, 11, 550–560.
40. P.Rosenbaum (1984). The consquences of adjustment for a concomitant variable that has been affected by the treatment. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (General), 147, 656–666. 10.2307/2981697
41. P.RosenbaumD.Rubin (1983a). Assessing sensitivity to an unobserved binary covariate in an observational study with binary outcome. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 45, 212–218.
42. P.RosenbaumD.Rubin (1983b). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70, 41–55. 10.1093/biomet/70.1.41
43. D.Rubin (1979). Using multivariate matched sampling and regression adjustment to control bias in observational studies. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74, 318–328.
44. D.Rubin (2001). Using propensity scores to help design observational studies: Application to the tobacco litigation. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology, 2, 169–188.
45. D.Rubin (2005). Causal inference using potential outcomes. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 100, 322–331.
46. J.SchaferJ.Kang (2008). Average causal effects from nonrandomized studies: A practical guide and simulated example. Psychological Methods, 13, 279.
47. J.Sekhon (2011). Multivariate and propensity score matching software with automated balance optimization: The matching package for R. Journal of Statistical Software, 42, 1–52.
48. A.Sjölander (2009). Propensity scores and m-structures. Statistics in Medicine, 28, 1416–1420.
49. J.SterneK.Tilling (2002). G-estimation of causal effects, allowing for time-varying confounding. Stata Journal, 2, 164–182.
50. E.Stuart (2010). Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward. Statistical Science, 25, 1–21.
51. E.StuartS.ColeC.BradshawP.Leaf (2011). The use of propensity scores to assess the generalizability of results from randomized trials. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 174, 369–386. 10.1111/j.1467-985X.2010.00673.x
52. F.ThoemmesE.-S.Kim (2011). A systematic review of propensity score methods in the social sciences. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46, 90–118. 10.1080/00273171.2011.540475
53. F.ThoemmesK.Mohan (2015). Graphical representation of missing data problems. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 22, 631–642.
54. F.ThoemmesN.Rose (2014). A cautious note on auxiliary variables that can increase bias in missing data problems. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 49, 443–459.
55. M.J.van der LaanE.C.PolleyA.E.Hubbard (2007). Super learner. Statistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology, 6, 1–21.
56. W.van der WalR.Geskus (2011). ipw: An R package for inverse probability weighting. Journal of Statistical Software, 43, 1–23.
57. T.VanderWeele (2008). Sensitivity analysis: Distributional assumptions and confounding assumptions. Biometrics, 64, 645–649.
58. T.VanderWeeleO.A.Arah (2011). Bias formulas for sensitivity analysis of unmeasured confounding for general outcomes, treatments, and confounders. Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.), 22, 42–52.
59. T.VanderWeeleL.HawkleyR.ThistedJ.Cacioppo (2011). A marginal structural model analysis for loneliness: Implications for intervention trials and clinical practice. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 79, 225–235.
60. S.VansteelandtR.Daniel (2014). On regression adjustment for the propensity score. Statistics in Medicine, 33, 4053–4072.
61. A.VinokurY.SchulJ.VuoriR.Price (2000). Two years after a job loss: Long-term impact of the JOBS program on reemployment and mental health. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 32–47.
62. S.G.WestF.Thoemmes (2008). Equating groups. In (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of social research methods (pp. 414–430). London, England: Sage.
63. D.WestreichJ.LesslerM.Jonsson Funk (2010). Propensity score estimation: Neural networks, support vector machines, decision trees (CART), and meta-classifiers as alternatives to logistic regression. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63, 826–833.
64. H.White (1980). A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 48, 817–838.
65. Y.ZhuD.L.CoffmanD.Ghosh (2015). A boosting algorithm for estimating generalized propensity scores with continuous treatments. Journal of Causal Inference, 3, 25–40.