IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/scjsta/v49y2022i2p718-743.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The role of propensity score structure in asymptotic efficiency of estimated conditional quantile treatment effect

Author

Listed:
  • Niwen Zhou
  • Xu Guo
  • Lixing Zhu

Abstract

When a strict subset of covariates is given, we propose conditional quantile treatment effect (CQTE) to offer, compared with the unconditional quantile treatment effect (QTE) and conditional average treatment effect (CATE), a more complete and informative view of the heterogeneity of treatment effects via the quantile sheet that is a function of the given covariates and quantile levels. Even though either one or both QTE and CATE are not significant, CQTE could still show some impact of the treatment on the upper and lower tails of subpopulations' (defined by the covariates subset) distribution. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first to consider such a low‐dimensional conditional quantile treatment effect in the literature. We focus on deriving the asymptotic normality of propensity score‐based estimators under parametric, nonparametric, and semiparametric structure. We make a systematic study on the estimation efficiency to check the importance of propensity score structure and the essential differences from the unconditional counterparts. The derived unique properties can answer: what is the general ranking of these estimators? how does the affiliation of the given covariates to the set of covariates of the propensity score affect the efficiency? how does the convergence rate of the estimated propensity score affect the efficiency? and why would semiparametric estimation be worth of recommendation in practice? The simulation studies are conducted to examine the performances of these estimators. A real data example is analyzed for illustration and some new findings are acquired.

Suggested Citation

  • Niwen Zhou & Xu Guo & Lixing Zhu, 2022. "The role of propensity score structure in asymptotic efficiency of estimated conditional quantile treatment effect," Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, Danish Society for Theoretical Statistics;Finnish Statistical Society;Norwegian Statistical Association;Swedish Statistical Association, vol. 49(2), pages 718-743, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:scjsta:v:49:y:2022:i:2:p:718-743
    DOI: 10.1111/sjos.12539
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/sjos.12539
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/sjos.12539?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stefan Wager & Susan Athey, 2018. "Estimation and Inference of Heterogeneous Treatment Effects using Random Forests," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 113(523), pages 1228-1242, July.
    2. Roger Koenker, 2017. "Quantile Regression: 40 Years On," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 9(1), pages 155-176, September.
    3. Sergio Firpo, 2007. "Efficient Semiparametric Estimation of Quantile Treatment Effects," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 75(1), pages 259-276, January.
    4. Jianxuan Liu & Yanyuan Ma & Lan Wang, 2018. "An alternative robust estimator of average treatment effect in causal inference," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 74(3), pages 910-923, September.
    5. Zhu, Lixing & Miao, Baiqi & Peng, Heng, 2006. "On Sliced Inverse Regression With High-Dimensional Covariates," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 101, pages 630-643, June.
    6. Jason Abrevaya & Yu-Chin Hsu & Robert P. Lieli, 2015. "Estimating Conditional Average Treatment Effects," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(4), pages 485-505, October.
    7. Guido W. Imbens & Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2009. "Recent Developments in the Econometrics of Program Evaluation," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(1), pages 5-86, March.
    8. Keisuke Hirano & Guido W. Imbens & Geert Ridder, 2003. "Efficient Estimation of Average Treatment Effects Using the Estimated Propensity Score," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 71(4), pages 1161-1189, July.
    9. Yingcun Xia & Howell Tong & W. K. Li & Li‐Xing Zhu, 2002. "An adaptive estimation of dimension reduction space," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 64(3), pages 363-410, August.
    10. Roger Koenker, 2017. "Quantile regression 40 years on," CeMMAP working papers CWP36/17, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    11. Guo, Xu & Fang, Yun & Zhu, Xuehu & Xu, Wangli & Zhu, Lixing, 2018. "Semiparametric double robust and efficient estimation for mean functionals with response missing at random," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 325-339.
    12. Xuerong Chen & Alan T. K. Wan & Yong Zhou, 2015. "Efficient Quantile Regression Analysis With Missing Observations," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 110(510), pages 723-741, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Francesca Caselli & Mr. Philippe Wingender, 2018. "Bunching at 3 Percent: The Maastricht Fiscal Criterion and Government Deficits," IMF Working Papers 2018/182, International Monetary Fund.
    2. Caselli, Francesca & Wingender, Philippe, 2021. "Heterogeneous effects of fiscal rules: The Maastricht fiscal criterion and the counterfactual distribution of government deficits✰," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    3. Michael C Knaus & Michael Lechner & Anthony Strittmatter, 2021. "Machine learning estimation of heterogeneous causal effects: Empirical Monte Carlo evidence," The Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 24(1), pages 134-161.
    4. Wei Huang & Oliver Linton & Zheng Zhang, 2021. "A Unified Framework for Specification Tests of Continuous Treatment Effect Models," Papers 2102.08063, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2021.
    5. Rahul Singh & Liyuan Xu & Arthur Gretton, 2020. "Kernel Methods for Causal Functions: Dose, Heterogeneous, and Incremental Response Curves," Papers 2010.04855, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2022.
    6. Martin Huber & Jannis Kueck, 2022. "Testing the identification of causal effects in observational data," Papers 2203.15890, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2023.
    7. Lihua Lei & Emmanuel J. Candès, 2021. "Conformal inference of counterfactuals and individual treatment effects," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 83(5), pages 911-938, November.
    8. Qingliang Fan & Yu-Chin Hsu & Robert P. Lieli & Yichong Zhang, 2022. "Estimation of Conditional Average Treatment Effects With High-Dimensional Data," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(1), pages 313-327, January.
    9. Zongwu Cai & Ying Fang & Ming Lin & Shengfang Tang, 2020. "Inferences for Partially Conditional Quantile Treatment Effect Model," WORKING PAPERS SERIES IN THEORETICAL AND APPLIED ECONOMICS 202005, University of Kansas, Department of Economics, revised Feb 2020.
    10. Guido Imbens & Yiqing Xu, 2024. "LaLonde (1986) after Nearly Four Decades: Lessons Learned," Papers 2406.00827, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2024.
    11. Victor Chernozhukov & Iván Fernández‐Val & Blaise Melly, 2013. "Inference on Counterfactual Distributions," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 81(6), pages 2205-2268, November.
    12. Pablo Lavado & Gonzalo Rivera, 2016. "Identifying Treatment Effects with Data Combination and Unobserved Heterogeneity," Working Papers 79, Peruvian Economic Association.
    13. Michael C. Knaus, 2021. "A double machine learning approach to estimate the effects of musical practice on student’s skills," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 184(1), pages 282-300, January.
    14. Chunrong Ai & Oliver Linton & Kaiji Motegi & Zheng Zhang, 2021. "A unified framework for efficient estimation of general treatment models," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 12(3), pages 779-816, July.
    15. Maier, Michael, 2011. "Tests for distributional treatment effects under unconfoundedness," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 110(1), pages 49-51, January.
    16. Halbert White & Karim Chalak, 2013. "Identification and Identification Failure for Treatment Effects Using Structural Systems," Econometric Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(3), pages 273-317, November.
    17. Pablo Lavado & Gonzalo Rivera, 2015. "Identifying treatment effects and counterfactual distributions using data combination with unobserved heterogeneity," Working Papers 15-14, Centro de Investigación, Universidad del Pacífico.
    18. Firpo, Sergio Pinheiro & Pinto, Rafael de Carvalho Cayres, 2012. "Combining Strategies for the Estimation of Treatment Effects," Brazilian Review of Econometrics, Sociedade Brasileira de Econometria - SBE, vol. 32(1), March.
    19. Ying-Ying Lee, 2015. "Efficient propensity score regression estimators of multi-valued treatment effects for the treated," Economics Series Working Papers 738, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    20. Difang Huang & Jiti Gao & Tatsushi Oka, 2022. "Semiparametric Single-Index Estimation for Average Treatment Effects," Papers 2206.08503, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2024.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:scjsta:v:49:y:2022:i:2:p:718-743. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0303-6898 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.