IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/causin/v11y2023i1p23n1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sensitivity analysis for causal decomposition analysis: Assessing robustness toward omitted variable bias

Author

Listed:
  • Park Soojin

    (School of Education, University of California, Riverside, California, United States of America)

  • Kang Suyeon
  • Ma Shujie

    (Department of Statistics, University of California, Riverside, California, United States of America)

  • Lee Chioun

    (Department of Sociology, University of California, Riverside, California, United States of America)

Abstract

A key objective of decomposition analysis is to identify a factor (the “mediator”) contributing to disparities in an outcome between social groups. In decomposition analysis, a scholarly interest often centers on estimating how much the disparity (e.g., health disparities between Black women and White men) would be reduced/remain if we set the mediator (e.g., education) distribution of one social group equal to another. However, causally identifying disparity reduction and remaining depends on the no omitted mediator–outcome confounding assumption, which is not empirically testable. Therefore, we propose a set of sensitivity analyses to assess the robustness of disparity reduction to possible unobserved confounding. We derived general bias formulas for disparity reduction, which can be used beyond a particular statistical model and do not require any functional assumptions. Moreover, the same bias formulas apply with unobserved confounding measured before and after the group status. On the basis of the formulas, we provide sensitivity analysis techniques based on regression coefficients and R2{R}^{2} values by extending the existing approaches. The R2{R}^{2}-based sensitivity analysis offers a straightforward interpretation of sensitivity parameters and a standard way to report the robustness of research findings. Although we introduce sensitivity analysis techniques in the context of decomposition analysis, they can be utilized in any mediation setting based on interventional indirect effects when the exposure is randomized (or conditionally ignorable given covariates).

Suggested Citation

  • Park Soojin & Kang Suyeon & Ma Shujie & Lee Chioun, 2023. "Sensitivity analysis for causal decomposition analysis: Assessing robustness toward omitted variable bias," Journal of Causal Inference, De Gruyter, vol. 11(1), pages 1-23, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:bpj:causin:v:11:y:2023:i:1:p:23:n:1
    DOI: 10.1515/jci-2022-0031
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/jci-2022-0031
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/jci-2022-0031?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. Winkleby, M.A. & Jatulis, D.E. & Frank, E. & Fortmann, S.P., 1992. "Socioeconomic status and health: How education, income, and occupation contribute to risk factors for cardiovascular disease," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 82(6), pages 816-820.
    2. Tyler J. VanderWeele & Eric J. Tchetgen Tchetgen, 2017. "Mediation analysis with time varying exposures and mediators," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 79(3), pages 917-938, June.
    3. Zheng Wenjing & van der Laan Mark, 2017. "Longitudinal Mediation Analysis with Time-varying Mediators and Exposures, with Application to Survival Outcomes," Journal of Causal Inference, De Gruyter, vol. 5(2), pages 1-24, September.
    4. Imai, Kosuke & Yamamoto, Teppei, 2013. "Identification and Sensitivity Analysis for Multiple Causal Mechanisms: Revisiting Evidence from Framing Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 21(2), pages 141-171, April.
    5. John W. Jackson, 2019. "Meaningful causal decompositions in health equity research: definition, identification, and estimation through a weighting framework," Papers 1909.10060, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2020.
    6. Carlos Cinelli & Chad Hazlett, 2020. "Making sense of sensitivity: extending omitted variable bias," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 82(1), pages 39-67, February.
    7. Soojin Park & Kevin M. Esterling, 2021. "Sensitivity Analysis for Pretreatment Confounding With Multiple Mediators," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 46(1), pages 85-108, February.
    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. Shuxi Zeng & Elizabeth C. Lange & Elizabeth A. Archie & Fernando A. Campos & Susan C. Alberts & Fan Li, 2023. "A Causal Mediation Model for Longitudinal Mediators and Survival Outcomes with an Application to Animal Behavior," Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics, Springer;The International Biometric Society;American Statistical Association, vol. 28(2), pages 197-218, June.
    2. Kara E. Rudolph & Jonathan Levy & Mark J. van der Laan, 2021. "Transporting stochastic direct and indirect effects to new populations," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 77(1), pages 197-211, March.
    3. Soojin Park & Kevin M. Esterling, 2021. "Sensitivity Analysis for Pretreatment Confounding With Multiple Mediators," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 46(1), pages 85-108, February.
    4. Lamberova, Natalia, 2021. "The puzzling politics of R&D: Signaling competence through risky projects," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 801-818.
    5. Matthew G. Cox & Yasemin Kisbu-Sakarya & Milica MioÄ ević & David P. MacKinnon, 2013. "Sensitivity Plots for Confounder Bias in the Single Mediator Model," Evaluation Review, , vol. 37(5), pages 405-431, October.
    6. Acharya, Avidit & Blackwell, Matthew & Sen, Maya, 2016. "Explaining Causal Findings Without Bias: Detecting and Assessing Direct Effects," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 110(3), pages 512-529, August.
    7. Jake M. Najman & William Wang & Maria Plotnikova & Abdullah A. Mamun & David McIntyre & Gail M. Williams & James G. Scott & William Bor & Alexandra M. Clavarino, 0. "Poverty over the early life course and young adult cardio-metabolic risk," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 0, pages 1-10.
    8. M. Vernay & B. Salanave & C. Peretti & C. Druet & A. Malon & V. Deschamps & S. Hercberg & K. Castetbon, 2013. "Metabolic syndrome and socioeconomic status in France: The French Nutrition and Health Survey (ENNS, 2006–2007)," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 58(6), pages 855-864, December.
    9. Johnen, Constantin & Musshoff, Oliver & Parlasca, Martin C., 2022. "Mobile Money Adoption in Kenya: The Role of Mobile Money Agents," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322294, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. Syed Hasan & Odmaa Narantungalag, & Martin Berka, 2022. "The intended and unintended consequences of large electricity subsidies: evidence from Mongolia," Discussion Papers 2202, School of Economics and Finance, Massey University, New Zealand.
    11. Parker Hevron, 2018. "Judicialization and Its Effects: Experiments as a Way Forward," Laws, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-21, May.
    12. Heng Chen & Daniel F. Heitjan, 2022. "Analysis of local sensitivity to nonignorability with missing outcomes and predictors," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 78(4), pages 1342-1352, December.
    13. Chunping Han, 2014. "Health Implications of Socioeconomic Characteristics, Subjective Social Status, and Perceptions of Inequality: An Empirical Study of China," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 119(2), pages 495-514, November.
    14. Indra de Soysa, 2022. "Economic freedom vs. egalitarianism: An empirical test of weak & strong sustainability, 1970–2017," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 75(2), pages 236-268, May.
    15. Garz, Marcel & Maaß, Sabrina, 2021. "Cartels in the European Union, antitrust action, and public attention," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 186(C), pages 533-547.
    16. Wenjian Zhou & Jianming Hou & Meng Sun & Chang Wang, 2022. "The Impact of Family Socioeconomic Status on Elderly Health in China: Based on the Frailty Index," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(2), pages 1-14, January.
    17. Manka Eunice Fuh & Brice Wilfried Obiang-Obounou*, 2019. "Overview of Migrant Women’s Health in South Korea: Policy Recommendations," The Journal of Social Sciences Research, Academic Research Publishing Group, vol. 5(3), pages 709-714, 03-2019.
    18. Melissa P L Chan & Robert S Weinhold & Reuben Thomas & Julia M Gohlke & Christopher J Portier, 2015. "Environmental Predictors of US County Mortality Patterns on a National Basis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-25, December.
    19. Colnet Bénédicte & Josse Julie & Varoquaux Gaël & Scornet Erwan, 2022. "Causal effect on a target population: A sensitivity analysis to handle missing covariates," Journal of Causal Inference, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 372-414, January.
    20. Martin Huber & Yu‐Chin Hsu & Ying‐Ying Lee & Layal Lettry, 2020. "Direct and indirect effects of continuous treatments based on generalized propensity score weighting," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 35(7), pages 814-840, November.

    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:bpj:causin:v:11:y:2023:i:1:p:23:n:1. 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: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    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.