IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/csdana/v128y2018icp48-57.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring model misspecification: Application to propensity score methods with complex survey data

Author

Listed:
  • Lenis, David
  • Ackerman, Benjamin
  • Stuart, Elizabeth A.

Abstract

Model misspecification is a potential problem for any parametric-model based analysis. However, the measurement and consequences of model misspecification have not been well formalized in the context of causal inference. A measure of model misspecification is proposed, and the consequences of model misspecification in non-experimental causal inference methods are investigated. The metric is then used to explore which estimators are more sensitive to misspecification of the outcome and/or treatment assignment model. Three frequently used estimators of the treatment effect are considered, all of which rely on the propensity score: (1) full matching, (2) 1:1 nearest neighbor matching, and (3) weighting. The performance of these estimators is evaluated under two different sampling designs: (1) simple random sampling (SRS) and (2) a two-stage stratified survey. As the degree of misspecification of either the propensity score or outcome model increases, so does the bias and the root mean square error, while the coverage decreases. Results are similar for the simple random sample and a complex survey design.

Suggested Citation

  • Lenis, David & Ackerman, Benjamin & Stuart, Elizabeth A., 2018. "Measuring model misspecification: Application to propensity score methods with complex survey data," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 48-57.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:csdana:v:128:y:2018:i:c:p:48-57
    DOI: 10.1016/j.csda.2018.05.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167947318301105
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.csda.2018.05.003?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James J. Heckman & Petra E. Todd, 2009. "A note on adapting propensity score matching and selection models to choice based samples," Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 12(s1), pages 230-234, January.
    2. Lumley, Thomas, 2004. "Analysis of Complex Survey Samples," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 9(i08).
    3. Steven Glazerman & Dan M. Levy & David Myers, 2003. "Nonexperimental Versus Experimental Estimates of Earnings Impacts," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 589(1), pages 63-93, September.
    4. Jinyong Hahn, 1998. "On the Role of the Propensity Score in Efficient Semiparametric Estimation of Average Treatment Effects," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(2), pages 315-332, March.
    5. Guido W. Imbens, 2004. "Nonparametric Estimation of Average Treatment Effects Under Exogeneity: A Review," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 86(1), pages 4-29, February.
    6. Elaine Zanutto & Bo Lu & Robert Hornik, 2005. "Using Propensity Score Subclassification for Multiple Treatment Doses to Evaluate a National Antidrug Media Campaign," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 30(1), pages 59-73, March.
    7. Kosuke Imai & David A. van Dyk, 2004. "Causal Inference With General Treatment Regimes: Generalizing the Propensity Score," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 99, pages 854-866, January.
    8. repec:mpr:mprres:3694 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Ben B. Hansen, 2004. "Full Matching in an Observational Study of Coaching for the SAT," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 99, pages 609-618, January.
    10. Ho, Daniel E. & Imai, Kosuke & King, Gary & Stuart, Elizabeth A., 2007. "Matching as Nonparametric Preprocessing for Reducing Model Dependence in Parametric Causal Inference," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(3), pages 199-236, July.
    11. Joffe, Marshall M. & Ten Have, Thomas R. & Feldman, Harold I. & Kimmel, Stephen E., 2004. "Model Selection, Confounder Control, and Marginal Structural Models: Review and New Applications," The American Statistician, American Statistical Association, vol. 58, pages 272-279, November.
    12. Ho, Daniel & Imai, Kosuke & King, Gary & Stuart, Elizabeth A., 2011. "MatchIt: Nonparametric Preprocessing for Parametric Causal Inference," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 42(i08).
    13. Alberto Abadie & Guido W. Imbens, 2006. "Large Sample Properties of Matching Estimators for Average Treatment Effects," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 74(1), pages 235-267, January.
    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. Huber, Martin & Lechner, Michael & Wunsch, Conny, 2013. "The performance of estimators based on the propensity score," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 175(1), pages 1-21.
    2. Shu Yang & Guido W. Imbens & Zhanglin Cui & Douglas E. Faries & Zbigniew Kadziola, 2016. "Propensity score matching and subclassification in observational studies with multi‐level treatments," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 72(4), pages 1055-1065, December.
    3. Phuong Nguyen-Hoang, 2012. "Fiscal effects of budget referendums: evidence from New York school districts," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 150(1), pages 77-95, January.
    4. Stephen L. Morgan & David J. Harding, 2006. "Matching Estimators of Causal Effects," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 35(1), pages 3-60, August.
    5. Gonzalez-Ramirez, Maria Jimena & Kling, Catherine L. & Arbuckle, J. Gordon Jr., 2015. "Cost-share Effectiveness in the Adoption of Cover Crops in Iowa," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205876, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Heinrich, Carolyn J. & Mueser, Peter R. & Troske, Kenneth & Jeon, Kyung-Seong & Kahvecioglu, Daver C., 2009. "New Estimates of Public Employment and Training Program Net Impacts: A Nonexperimental Evaluation of the Workforce Investment Act Program," IZA Discussion Papers 4569, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    7. Susan Athey & Guido W. Imbens, 2017. "The State of Applied Econometrics: Causality and Policy Evaluation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 31(2), pages 3-32, Spring.
    8. Farrell, Max H., 2015. "Robust inference on average treatment effects with possibly more covariates than observations," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 189(1), pages 1-23.
    9. Jones A.M & Rice N, 2009. "Econometric Evaluation of Health Policies," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 09/09, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    10. Martin Huber & Michael Lechner & Andreas Steinmayr, 2015. "Radius matching on the propensity score with bias adjustment: tuning parameters and finite sample behaviour," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 1-31, August.
    11. Steven Lehrer & Gregory Kordas, 2013. "Matching using semiparametric propensity scores," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 13-45, February.
    12. Carlos A. Flores & Oscar A. Mitnik, 2009. "Evaluating Nonexperimental Estimators for Multiple Treatments: Evidence from Experimental Data," Working Papers 2010-10, University of Miami, Department of Economics.
    13. Huber, Martin & Lechner, Michael & Wunsch, Conny, 2010. "How to Control for Many Covariates? Reliable Estimators Based on the Propensity Score," IZA Discussion Papers 5268, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    14. Zhexiao Lin & Peng Ding & Fang Han, 2021. "Estimation based on nearest neighbor matching: from density ratio to average treatment effect," Papers 2112.13506, arXiv.org.
    15. Yukitoshi Matsushita & Taisuke Otsu & Keisuke Takahata, 2022. "Estimating density ratio of marginals to joint: Applications to causal inference," STICERD - Econometrics Paper Series 619, Suntory and Toyota International Centres for Economics and Related Disciplines, LSE.
    16. Huber, Martin, 2019. "An introduction to flexible methods for policy evaluation," FSES Working Papers 504, Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences, University of Freiburg/Fribourg Switzerland.
    17. 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.
    18. Lechner, Michael & Wunsch, Conny & Huber, Martin & Walter, Thomas, 2009. "Do German Welfare-to-Work Programmes Reduce Welfare and Increase Work?," CEPR Discussion Papers 7238, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    19. Richard K. Crump & V. Joseph Hotz & Guido W. Imbens & Oscar A. Mitnik, 2006. "Moving the Goalposts: Addressing Limited Overlap in the Estimation of Average Treatment Effects by Changing the Estimand," NBER Technical Working Papers 0330, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Martin Huber & Michael Lechner & Giovanni Mellace, 2017. "Why Do Tougher Caseworkers Increase Employment? The Role of Program Assignment as a Causal Mechanism," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 99(1), pages 180-183, March.

    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:eee:csdana:v:128:y:2018:i:c:p:48-57. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/csda .

    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.