ADJUSTMENT WHEN COVARIATES ARE FALLIBLE

Statistics and Causality: Methods for Applied Empirical Research

Volumn , Issue , 2016, Pages 363-383

  Marie Ann, Steffi Pohl ^a   Rolf Steyer, Sengewald ^b  

^a FREIE UNIVERSITÄT BERLIN   (Germany)

^b FRIEDRICH SCHILLER UNIVERSITY JENA   (Germany)

Author keywords

biasing effect; causal effect estimation; fallible covariate; latent covariates; theoretical framework

Indexed keywords

EID: 85142575077     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1002/9781118947074.ch15     Document Type: Chapter

References (54)

1. Aiken, L.S. and West, S.G. (1991) Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
2. Brookhart, M.A., Schneeweiss, S., Rothman, K.J., Glynn, R.J., Avorn, J., and Stürmer, T. (2006) Variable selection for propensity score models. American Journal of Epidemiology, 163 (12), 1149–1156.
3. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S.G., and Aiken, L.S. (2003) Applied Multiple Regression/ Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
4. Cole, S.R., Platt, R.W., Schisterman, E.F., Chu, H., Westreich, D., Richardson, D., and Poole, C. (2010) Illustrating bias due to conditioning on a collider. International Journal of Epidemiology, 39 (2), 417–420.
5. Collins, L.M., Schafer, J.L., and Kam, C.M. (2001) A comparison of inclusive and restrictive strategies in modern missing data procedures. Psychological Methods, 6 (4), 330–351.
6. Cook, T.D., Steiner, P.M., and Pohl, S. (2009) How bias reduction is affected by covariate choice, unreliability, and mode of data analysis: Results from two types of within-study comparisons. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 44 (6), 828–847.
7. Embretson, S.E. and Reise, S.P. (2000) Item Response Theory for Psychologists, Erlbaum, London.
8. Holland, P.W. (1986) Statistics and causal inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81 (396), 945–960.
9. Kelcey, B. (2011) Covariate selection in propensity scores using outcome proxies. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46 (3), 453–476.
10. Kröhne, J.U. (2010) Estimation of average total effects in quasi-experimental designs: Nonlinear constraints in structural equation models, PhD thesis, Friedrich Schiller Universität Jena, Diss., 2010, Jena.
11. Kuroki, M. and Pearl, J. (2014) Measurement bias and effect restoration in causal inference. Biometrika, 101 (2), 423–437.
12. Lockwood, J. and McCaffrey, D. (2013) SIMEX for weighting and matching applications with error-prone covariates, Paper presented at Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness Fall 2013 Conference, Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://www.sree.org/download/files/1414578570w0_conf_976.pdf.
13. Lockwood, J. and McCaffrey, D.F. (2014) Correcting for test score measurement error in ANCOVA models for estimating treatment effects. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 39 (1), 22–52.
14. Lord, F.M., Novick, M.R., and Birnbaum, A. (1968) Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
15. Mayer, A. (2015) Effect Lite R, Unpublished R package. Retrieved from https:// github.com/amayer2010/effectliter.
16. Mayer, A., Dietzfelbinger, L., Rosseel, Y., and Steyer, R. (2016) The Effect Lite R approach for analyzing average and conditional effects, Manuscript submitted for publication.
17. Mayer, A., Thoemmes, F., Rose, N., Steyer, R., and West, S.G. (2014) Theory and analysis of total, direct, and indirect causal effects. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 49 (5), 425–442.
18. McCaffrey, D.F., Lockwood, J., and Setodji, C.M. (2013) Inverse probability weighting with error-prone covariates. Biometrika, 100 (3), 671–680.
19. Millsap, R.E. (2011) Statistical Approaches to Measurement Invariance, Routledge, NewYork.
20. Muthén, L. and Muthén, B. (1998/2012) Mplus User’s Guide, 7th edn [Computer software manual], Muthén & Muthén, Los Angeles, CA.
21. Neyman, J. (1923/1990) On the application of probability theory to agricultural experiments. Essay on principles. Section 9. Statistical Science, 5, 465–480. Originally published 1923.
22. Pearl, J. (1995) Causal diagrams for empirical research. Biometrika, 82 (4), 669–688.
23. Pearl, J. (2009) Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
24. Pearl, J. (2010) On a class of bias-amplifying covariates that endanger effect estimates, (Tech. Rep. R-356), University of California, Los Angeles, CA.
25. Pearl, J. (2013) Linear models: A useful “microscope” for causal analysis. Journal of Causal Inference, 1 (1), 155–170.
26. Pohl, S. and Sengewald, M.A. (2014) On the importance of adjustment for latent covariates, Presentation at the Conference on Statistics and Causality, Vienna, Austria.
27. Pohl, S., Steiner, P.M., Eisermann, J., Soellner, R., and Cook, T.D. (2009) Unbiased causal inference from an observational study: Results of a within-study comparison. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31 (4), 463–479.
28. Raykov, T. (2012) Propensity score analysis with fallible covariates: A note on a latent variable modeling approach. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 72 (5), 715–733.
29. Rosenbaum, P.R. and Rubin, D.B. (1983) The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70 (1), 41–55.
30. Rosenbaum, P.R. and Rubin, D.B. (1984) Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 79 (387), 516–524.
31. Rosseel, Y. (2012) lavaan:An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48 (2), 1–36, Retrieved from http://www.jstatsoft.org/v48/ i02/.
32. Rubin, D.B. (1974) Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66 (5), 688.
33. Rubin, D.B. (2001) Using propensity scores to help design observational studies: Application to the tobacco litigation. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology, 2, 169–188.
34. Rubin, D.B. (2005) Causal inference using potential outcomes: Design, modeling, decisions. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 100, 322–331.
35. Rubin, D.B. and Thomas, N. (1996) Matching using estimated propensity scores: Relating theory to practice. Biometrics, 52 (1), 249–264.
36. Schafer, J.L. and Kang, J. (2008) Average causal effects from nonrandomized studies: A practical guide and simulated example. Psychological Methods, 13 (4), 279–313.
37. Sengewald, M.-A. and Pohl, S. (2016) Compensating for attenuation bias: The impact of additional covariates. Manuscript in preparation.
38. Sengewald, M.-A., Pohl, S., and Steiner, P.M. (2016) On the importance of adjusting for latent covariates, Manuscript submitted for publication.
39. Shadish, W.R., Clark, M.H., and Steiner, P.M. (2008) Can nonrandomized experiments yield accurate answers? A randomized experiment comparing random and nonrandom assignments (with comments by Little/Long/Lin, Hill, and Rubin, and a rejoinder). Journal of the American Statistical Association, 103 (484), 1334–1356.
40. teiner, P.M. and Cook, D.L. (2013) Matching and propensity scores, in The Oxford Handbook of Quantitative Methods, vol. 1, Foundations (ed. T.D. Little), Oxford University Press, New York.
41. Steiner, P.M., Cook, T.D., and Shadish, W.R. (2011) On the importance of reliable covariate measurement in selection bias adjustments using propensity scores. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 36 (2), 213–236.
42. Steiner, P.M., Cook, T.D., Shadish, W.R., and Clark, M.H. (2010) The importance of covariate selection in controlling for selection bias in observational studies. Psychological Methods, 15 (3), 250–267.
43. Steiner, P.M. and Yongnam, K. (2014) On the bias-amplifying effect of near instruments in observational studies, Paper presented at the Society for Research on Education Effectiveness Spring 2014 Conference, Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://www.sree.org/conferences/2014s/program/downloads/abstracts/ 1197.pdf.
44. Steyer, R., Gabler, S., von Davier, A.A., and Nachtigall, C. (2000a) Causal regression models II: Unconfoundedness and causal unbiasedness. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 5 (3), 55–86.
45. Steyer, R., Gabler, S., von Davier, A.A., Nachtigall, C., and Buhl, T. (2000b) Causal regression models I: Individual and average causal effects. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 5 (2), 39–71.
46. Steyer, R., Mayer, A., and Fiege, C. (2014) Causal inference on total, direct, and indirect effects, in Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research (ed. A.C. Michalos), Springer-Verlag, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 606–631.
47. Steyer, R., Mayer, A., Geiser, C., and Cole, D.A. (2015) A theory of states and traits-revised. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 11, 71–98.
48. Steyer, R., Nachtigall, C., Wüthrich-Martone, O., and Kraus, K. (2002) Causal regression models III: Covariates, conditional, and unconditional average causal effects. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 7 (1), 41–68.
49. Steyer, R. and Partchev, I. (2008) Effect Lite: User’s Manual, Department of Methodology and Evaluation Research, Jena, Germany. Retrieved from http://www.causaleffects. de/.
50. Stuart, E.A. (2013) Strategies for dealing with covariate measurement error for propensity scores. Paper presented at the Society for Research on Education Effectiveness Spring 2013 Conference, Washington, DC Retrieved from https://www.sree.org/ conferences/2013s/program/downloads/abstracts/915_3.pdf.
51. Stuart, E.A. and Rubin, D.B. (2007) Best practices in quasi-experimental designs: Matching methods for causal inference, in Best Practices in Quantitative Methods Chapter 11 (ed. J. Osborne), Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 155–176.
52. du Toit, S., du Toit, M., Mels, G., and Cheng, Y. (2005) LISREL for Windows: PRELIS User’s Guide, Scientific Software International, Lincolnwood, IL.
53. West, S.G. and Thoemmes, F. (2010) Campbell’s and Rubin’s perspectives on causal inference. Psychological Methods, 15 (1), 18–37.
54. Yi, G., Ma, Y., and Carroll, R.J. (2012) A functional generalized method of moments approach for longitudinal studies with missing responses and covariate measurement error. Biometrika, 99 (1), 151–165.