An official website of the United States government
This tutorial introduces the package sensemakr for R and Stata, which implements a suite of sensitivity analysis tools for regression models developed in Cinelli and Hazlett (2020, 2022). Given a regression model, sensemakr can compute sensitivity statistics for routine reporting, such as the robustness value , which describes the minimum strength that unobserved confounders need to have to overturn a research conclusion. The package also provides plotting tools that visually demonstrate the sensitivity of point estimates and t-values to hypothetical confounders. Finally, sensemakr implements formal bounds on sensitivity parameters by means of comparison with the explanatory power of observed variables. All these tools are based on the familiar omitted variable bias framework, do not require assumptions regarding the functional form of the treatment assignment mechanism nor the distribution of the unobserved confounders, and naturally handle multiple, non-linear confounders. With sensemakr, users can transparently report the sensitivity of their causal inferences to unobserved confounding, thereby enabling a more precise, quantitative debate as to what can be concluded from imperfect observational studies.
more »
« less
This content will become publicly available on January 1, 2026
An omitted variable bias framework for sensitivity analysis of instrumental variables
We develop an omitted variable bias framework for sensitivity analysis of instrumental variable estimates that naturally handles multiple side effects (violations of the exclusion restriction assumption) and confounders (violations of the ignorability of the instrument assumption) of the instrument, exploits expert knowledge to bound sensitivity parameters and can be easily implemented with standard software. Specifically, we introduce sensitivity statistics for routine reporting, such as (extreme) robustness values for instrumental variables, describing the minimum strength that omitted variables need to have to change the conclusions of a study. Next, we provide visual displays that fully characterize the sensitivity of point estimates and confidence intervals to violations of the standard instrumental variable assumptions. Finally, we offer formal bounds on the worst possible bias under the assumption that the maximum explanatory power of omitted variables is no stronger than a multiple of the explanatory power of observed variables. Conveniently, many pivotal conclusions regarding the sensitivity of the instrumental variable estimate (e.g., tests against the null hypothesis of a zero causal effect) can be reached simply through separate sensitivity analyses of the effect of the instrument on the treatment (the first stage) and the effect of the instrument on the outcome (the reduced form). We apply our methods in a running example that uses proximity to college as an instrumental variable to estimate the returns to schooling.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2417955
- PAR ID:
- 10614775
- Publisher / Repository:
- Oxford University Press
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Biometrika
- Volume:
- 112
- Issue:
- 2
- ISSN:
- 1464-3510
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Abstract Instrumental variables have been widely used to estimate the causal effect of a treatment on an outcome. Existing confidence intervals for causal effects based on instrumental variables assume that all of the putative instrumental variables are valid; a valid instrumental variable is a variable that affects the outcome only by affecting the treatment and is not related to unmeasured confounders. However, in practice, some of the putative instrumental variables are likely to be invalid. This paper presents two tools to conduct valid inference and tests in the presence of invalid instruments. First, we propose a simple and general approach to construct confidence intervals based on taking unions of well‐known confidence intervals. Second, we propose a novel test for the null causal effect based on a collider bias. Our two proposals outperform traditional instrumental variable confidence intervals when invalid instruments are present and can also be used as a sensitivity analysis when there is concern that instrumental variables assumptions are violated. The new approach is applied to a Mendelian randomization study on the causal effect of low‐density lipoprotein on globulin levels.more » « less
-
We study regressions with multiple treatments and a set of controls that is flexible enough to purge omitted variable bias. We show these regressions generally fail to estimate convex averages of heterogeneous treatment effects—instead, estimates of each treatment’s effect are contaminated by nonconvex averages of the effects of other treatments. We discuss three estimation approaches that avoid such contamination bias, including the targeting of easiest-to-estimate weighted average effects. A reanalysis of nine empirical applications finds economically and statistically meaningful contamination bias in observational studies; contamination bias in experimental studies is more limited due to smaller variability in propensity scores.more » « less
-
Summary Instrumental variable methods can identify causal effects even when the treatment and outcome are confounded. We study the problem of imperfect measurements of the binary instrumental variable, treatment and outcome. We first consider nondifferential measurement errors, that is, the mismeasured variable does not depend on other variables given its true value. We show that the measurement error of the instrumental variable does not bias the estimate, that the measurement error of the treatment biases the estimate away from zero, and that the measurement error of the outcome biases the estimate toward zero. Moreover, we derive sharp bounds on the causal effects without additional assumptions. These bounds are informative because they exclude zero. We then consider differential measurement errors, and focus on sensitivity analyses in those settings.more » « less
-
Abstract Mendelian randomization (MR) has been a popular method in genetic epidemiology to estimate the effect of an exposure on an outcome using genetic variants as instrumental variables (IV), with two‐sample summary‐data MR being the most popular. Unfortunately, instruments in MR studies are often weakly associated with the exposure, which can bias effect estimates and inflate Type I errors. In this work, we propose test statistics that are robust under weak‐instrument asymptotics by extending the Anderson–Rubin, Kleibergen, and the conditional likelihood ratio test in econometrics to two‐sample summary‐data MR. We also use the proposed Anderson–Rubin test to develop a point estimator and to detect invalid instruments. We conclude with a simulation and an empirical study and show that the proposed tests control size and have better power than existing methods with weak instruments.more » « less
