Search for: All records

For ordinal outcomes, the average treatment effect is often ill‐defined and hard to interpret. Echoing Agresti and Kateri, we argue that the relative treatment effect can be a useful measure, especially for ordinal outcomes, which is defined as , with and being the potential outcomes of unit under treatment and control, respectively. Given the marginal distributions of the potential outcomes, we derive the sharp bounds on which are identifiable parameters based on the observed data. Agresti and Kateri focused on modeling strategies under the assumption of independent potential outcomes, but we allow for arbitrary dependence.

 

In some randomized clinical trials, patients may die before the measurement time point of their outcomes. Even though randomization generates comparable treatment and control groups, the remaining survivors often differ significantly in background variables that are prognostic to the outcomes. This is called the truncation by death problem. Under the potential outcomes framework, the only well-defined causal effect on the outcome is within the subgroup of patients who would always survive under both treatment and control. Because the definition of the subgroup depends on the potential values of the survival status that could not be observed jointly, without making strong parametric assumptions, we cannot identify the causal effect of interest and consequently can only obtain bounds of it. Unfortunately, however, many bounds are too wide to be useful. We propose to use detailed survival information before and after the measurement time point of the outcomes to sharpen the bounds of the subgroup causal effect. Because survival times contain useful information about the final outcome, carefully utilizing them could improve statistical inference without imposing strong parametric assumptions. Moreover, we propose to use a copula model to relax the commonly-invoked but often doubtful monotonicity assumption that the treatment extends the survival time for all patients.

 

This paper evaluates the effects of being an only child in a family on psychological health, leveraging data on the One-Child Policy in China. We use an instrumental variable approach to address the potential unmeasured confounding between the fertility decision and psychological health, where the instrumental variable is an index on the intensity of the implementation of the One-Child Policy. We establish an analytical link between the local instrumental variable approach and principal stratification to accommodate the continuous instrumental variable. Within the principal stratification framework, we postulate a Bayesian hierarchical model to infer various causal estimands of policy interest while adjusting for the clustering data structure. We apply the method to the data from the China Family Panel Studies and find small but statistically significant negative effects of being an only child on self-reported psychological health for some subpopulations. Our analysis reveals treatment effect heterogeneity with respect to both observed and unobserved characteristics. In particular, urban males suffer the most from being only children, and the negative effect has larger magnitude if the families were more resistant to the One-Child Policy. We also conduct sensitivity analysis to assess the key instrumental variable assumption. 

Estimating causal effects under exogeneity hinges on two key assumptions: unconfoundedness and overlap. Researchers often argue that unconfoundedness is more plausible when more covariates are included in the analysis. Less discussed is the fact that covariate overlap is more difficult to satisfy in this setting. In this paper, we explore the implications of overlap in observational studies with high-dimensional covariates and formalize curse-of-dimensionality argument, suggesting that these assumptions are stronger than investigators likely realize. Our key innovation is to explore how strict overlap restricts global discrepancies between the covariate distributions in the treated and control populations. Exploiting results from information theory, we derive explicit bounds on the average imbalance in covariate means under strict overlap and show that these bounds become more restrictive as the dimension grows large. We discuss how these implications interact with assumptions and procedures commonly deployed in observational causal inference, including sparsity and trimming. 

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. 

Difference-in-differences is a widely used evaluation strategy that draws causal inference from observational panel data. Its causal identification relies on the assumption of parallel trends, which is scale-dependent and may be questionable in some applications. A common alternative is a regression model that adjusts for the lagged dependent variable, which rests on the assumption of ignorability conditional on past outcomes. In the context of linear models, Angrist and Pischke (2009) show that the difference-in-differences and lagged-dependent-variable regression estimates have a bracketing relationship. Namely, for a true positive effect, if ignorability is correct, then mistakenly assuming parallel trends will overestimate the effect; in contrast, if the parallel trends assumption is correct, then mistakenly assuming ignorability will underestimate the effect. We show that the same bracketing relationship holds in general nonparametric (model-free) settings. We also extend the result to semiparametric estimation based on inverse probability weighting. We provide three examples to illustrate the theoretical results with replication files in Ding and Li (2019).