Propensity Score Methods and Difference-in-Differences with an Exogenous Time-Varying Confounder: Evaluation of Methods

IF 1.7 4区 教育学 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness Pub Date : 2022-11-01 DOI:10.1080/19345747.2022.2128485
Peter Boedeker
{"title":"Propensity Score Methods and Difference-in-Differences with an Exogenous Time-Varying Confounder: Evaluation of Methods","authors":"Peter Boedeker","doi":"10.1080/19345747.2022.2128485","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Quasi-experimental designs (QEDs) are used to estimate a treatment effect without randomization. Confounders have a causal relationship with the outcome and probability of treatment adoption and if unaccounted for can bias treatment effect estimates. A variable considered a confounder prior to treatment can change after treatment has occurred (i.e., a time-varying confounder) not as a result of treatment (what we call an exogenous time-varying confounder). If the post-treatment value causally affects the outcome to change and this post-treatment value of the exogenous time-varying confounder is unaccounted for, then the treatment effect may be biased. We review the Rubin Causal Model and QED assumptions and the effect an exogenous time-varying confounder has on the ability of QEDs to produce an appropriate counterfactual. We conduct a simulation study evaluating propensity score and difference-in-differences based methods for estimating a treatment effect with an exogenous time-varying confounder. Propensity score weighted two-way fixed effects, inverse probability weighted, or doubly robust difference-in-differences methods, each with propensity scores estimated using post-implementation values of the exogenous time-varying confounder, proved least biased when the exogenous time-varying confounder changed differentially for members of the treatment and control groups.","PeriodicalId":47260,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2022.2128485","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Quasi-experimental designs (QEDs) are used to estimate a treatment effect without randomization. Confounders have a causal relationship with the outcome and probability of treatment adoption and if unaccounted for can bias treatment effect estimates. A variable considered a confounder prior to treatment can change after treatment has occurred (i.e., a time-varying confounder) not as a result of treatment (what we call an exogenous time-varying confounder). If the post-treatment value causally affects the outcome to change and this post-treatment value of the exogenous time-varying confounder is unaccounted for, then the treatment effect may be biased. We review the Rubin Causal Model and QED assumptions and the effect an exogenous time-varying confounder has on the ability of QEDs to produce an appropriate counterfactual. We conduct a simulation study evaluating propensity score and difference-in-differences based methods for estimating a treatment effect with an exogenous time-varying confounder. Propensity score weighted two-way fixed effects, inverse probability weighted, or doubly robust difference-in-differences methods, each with propensity scores estimated using post-implementation values of the exogenous time-varying confounder, proved least biased when the exogenous time-varying confounder changed differentially for members of the treatment and control groups.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
外生时变混杂因素的倾向评分方法和差异中的差异:方法的评价
准实验设计(Quasi-experimental designs, QEDs)用于估计治疗效果而不进行随机化。混杂因素与治疗结果和采用治疗的概率有因果关系,如果没有解释,可能会对治疗效果估计产生偏差。在治疗前被认为是混杂因素的变量可能在治疗发生后发生变化(即时变混杂因素),而不是作为治疗的结果(我们称之为外源性时变混杂因素)。如果治疗后值对结果的变化有因果关系,并且外源性时变混杂因素的治疗后值未得到解释,则治疗效果可能存在偏差。我们回顾了Rubin因果模型和QED假设,以及外生时变混杂因素对QED产生适当反事实的能力的影响。我们进行了一项模拟研究,评估倾向评分和基于差异中的差异的方法,以估计外源性时变混杂因素的治疗效果。倾向得分加权的双向固定效应、逆概率加权或双稳健性差中差法,每一种方法都使用外源性时变混杂因素的实施后值估计倾向得分,当外源性时变混杂因素对治疗组和对照组的成员发生差异变化时,证明偏差最小。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness
Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
11.10%
发文量
37
期刊介绍: As the flagship publication for the Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness, the Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness (JREE) publishes original articles from the multidisciplinary community of researchers who are committed to applying principles of scientific inquiry to the study of educational problems. Articles published in JREE should advance our knowledge of factors important for educational success and/or improve our ability to conduct further disciplined studies of pressing educational problems. JREE welcomes manuscripts that fit into one of the following categories: (1) intervention, evaluation, and policy studies; (2) theory, contexts, and mechanisms; and (3) methodological studies. The first category includes studies that focus on process and implementation and seek to demonstrate causal claims in educational research. The second category includes meta-analyses and syntheses, descriptive studies that illuminate educational conditions and contexts, and studies that rigorously investigate education processes and mechanism. The third category includes studies that advance our understanding of theoretical and technical features of measurement and research design and describe advances in data analysis and data modeling. To establish a stronger connection between scientific evidence and educational practice, studies submitted to JREE should focus on pressing problems found in classrooms and schools. Studies that help advance our understanding and demonstrate effectiveness related to challenges in reading, mathematics education, and science education are especially welcome as are studies related to cognitive functions, social processes, organizational factors, and cultural features that mediate and/or moderate critical educational outcomes. On occasion, invited responses to JREE articles and rejoinders to those responses will be included in an issue.
期刊最新文献
Does Teacher Professional Development Improve Student Learning? Evidence from Leading Educators’ Fellowship Model Addressing Missing Data Due to COVID-19: Two Early Childhood Case Studies The Impact of Community Eligibility Provision on Multilingual Learner Outcomes Oceania in the Desert: A QuantCrit Analysis of the (Under)Counting of Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander Students at an AANAPISI-HSI Heterogeneity of Item-Treatment Interactions Masks Complexity and Generalizability in Randomized Controlled Trials
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1