IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/biomet/v97y2010i4p997-1001.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A note on overadjustment in inverse probability weighted estimation

Author

Listed:
  • Andrea Rotnitzky
  • Lingling Li
  • Xiaochun Li

Abstract

Standardized means, commonly used in observational studies in epidemiology to adjust for potential confounders, are equal to inverse probability weighted means with inverse weights equal to the empirical propensity scores. More refined standardization corresponds with empirical propensity scores computed under more flexible models. Unnecessary standardization induces efficiency loss. However, according to the theory of inverse probability weighted estimation, propensity scores estimated under more flexible models induce improvement in the precision of inverse probability weighted means. This apparent contradiction is clarified by explicitly stating the assumptions under which the improvement in precision is attained. Copyright 2010, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrea Rotnitzky & Lingling Li & Xiaochun Li, 2010. "A note on overadjustment in inverse probability weighted estimation," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 97(4), pages 997-1001.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:biomet:v:97:y:2010:i:4:p:997-1001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/biomet/asq049
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Schnitzer Mireille E. & Lok Judith J. & Gruber Susan, 2016. "Variable Selection for Confounder Control, Flexible Modeling and Collaborative Targeted Minimum Loss-Based Estimation in Causal Inference," The International Journal of Biostatistics, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 97-115, May.
    2. Oliver Hines & Stijn Vansteelandt & Karla Diaz-Ordaz, 2021. "Robust Inference for Mediated Effects in Partially Linear Models," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 86(2), pages 595-618, June.
    3. Samuel Kwesi Dunyo & Samuel Amponsah Odei, 2023. "Firm-Level Innovations in an Emerging Economy: Do Perceived Policy Instability and Legal Institutional Conditions Matter?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-24, January.
    4. Porter Kristin E. & Gruber Susan & van der Laan Mark J. & Sekhon Jasjeet S., 2011. "The Relative Performance of Targeted Maximum Likelihood Estimators," The International Journal of Biostatistics, De Gruyter, vol. 7(1), pages 1-34, August.
    5. Zeyu Bian & Erica E. M. Moodie & Susan M. Shortreed & Sahir Bhatnagar, 2023. "Variable selection in regression‐based estimation of dynamic treatment regimes," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 79(2), pages 988-999, June.
    6. Susan M. Shortreed & Ashkan Ertefaie, 2017. "Outcome‐adaptive lasso: Variable selection for causal inference," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 73(4), pages 1111-1122, December.
    7. Leonard Henckel & Emilija Perković & Marloes H. Maathuis, 2022. "Graphical criteria for efficient total effect estimation via adjustment in causal linear models," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 84(2), pages 579-599, April.
    8. Karel Vermeulen & Stijn Vansteelandt, 2015. "Bias-Reduced Doubly Robust Estimation," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 110(511), pages 1024-1036, September.
    9. Bartolucci, Francesco & Grilli, Leonardo & Pieroni, Luca, 2012. "Estimating dynamic causal effects with unobserved confounders: a latent class version of the inverse probability weighted estimator," MPRA Paper 43430, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Agboola, Oluwagbenga David & Yu, Han, 2023. "Neighborhood-based cross fitting approach to treatment effects with high-dimensional data," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).

    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:oup:biomet:v:97:y:2010:i:4:p:997-1001. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/biomet .

    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.