IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/evarev/v44y2020i1p84-108.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using Propensity Score Analysis of Survey Data to Estimate Population Average Treatment Effects: A Case Study Comparing Different Methods

Author

Listed:
  • Nianbo Dong
  • Elizabeth A. Stuart
  • David Lenis
  • Trang Quynh Nguyen

Abstract

Background: Many studies in psychological and educational research aim to estimate population average treatment effects (PATE) using data from large complex survey samples, and many of these studies use propensity score methods. Recent advances have investigated how to incorporate survey weights with propensity score methods. However, to this point, that work had not been well summarized, and it was not clear how much difference the different PATE estimation methods would make empirically. Purpose: The purpose of this study is to systematically summarize the appropriate use of survey weights in propensity score analysis of complex survey data and use a case study to empirically compare the PATE estimates using multiple analysis methods that include ordinary least squares regression, weighted least squares regression, and various propensity score applications. Methods: We first summarize various propensity score methods that handle survey weights. We then demonstrate the performance of various analysis methods using a nationally representative data set, the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study–Kindergarten to estimate the effects of preschool on children’s academic achievement. The correspondence of the results was evaluated using multiple criteria. Results and Conclusions: It is important for researchers to think carefully about their estimand of interest and use methods appropriate for that estimand. If interest is in drawing inferences to the survey target population, it is important to take the survey weights into account, particularly in the outcome analysis stage for estimating the PATE. The case study shows, however, not much difference among various analysis methods in one applied example.

Suggested Citation

  • Nianbo Dong & Elizabeth A. Stuart & David Lenis & Trang Quynh Nguyen, 2020. "Using Propensity Score Analysis of Survey Data to Estimate Population Average Treatment Effects: A Case Study Comparing Different Methods," Evaluation Review, , vol. 44(1), pages 84-108, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:evarev:v:44:y:2020:i:1:p:84-108
    DOI: 10.1177/0193841X20938497
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0193841X20938497
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0193841X20938497?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. Edward L. Korn & Barry I. Graubard, 1995. "Analysis of Large Health Surveys: Accounting for the Sampling Design," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 158(2), pages 263-295, March.
    2. Harvey Goldstein & Michael J. R. Healy, 1995. "The Graphical Presentation of a Collection of Means," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 158(1), pages 175-177, January.
    3. Hong, Guanglei & Raudenbush, Stephen W., 2006. "Evaluating Kindergarten Retention Policy: A Case Study of Causal Inference for Multilevel Observational Data," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 101, pages 901-910, September.
    4. Magnuson, Katherine A. & Ruhm, Christopher & Waldfogel, Jane, 2007. "Does prekindergarten improve school preparation and performance?," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 33-51, February.
    5. Elizabeth Ty Wilde & Robinson Hollister, 2007. "How close is close enough? Evaluating propensity score matching using data from a class size reduction experiment," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(3), pages 455-477.
    6. Helen F. Ladd, 2012. "Education and Poverty: Confronting the Evidence," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(2), pages 203-227, March.
    7. Thomas D. Cook & William R. Shadish & Vivian C. Wong, 2008. "Three conditions under which experiments and observational studies produce comparable causal estimates: New findings from within-study comparisons," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(4), pages 724-750.
    8. 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.
    9. Elizabeth A. Stuart & Stephen R. Cole & Catherine P. Bradshaw & Philip J. Leaf, 2011. "The use of propensity scores to assess the generalizability of results from randomized trials," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 174(2), pages 369-386, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Youjin Lee & Trang Q. Nguyen & Elizabeth A. Stuart, 2021. "Partially pooled propensity score models for average treatment effect estimation with multilevel data," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 184(4), pages 1578-1598, October.

    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. Nianbo Dong & Mark W. Lipsey, 2018. "Can Propensity Score Analysis Approximate Randomized Experiments Using Pretest and Demographic Information in Pre-K Intervention Research?," Evaluation Review, , vol. 42(1), pages 34-70, February.
    2. Peter Z. Schochet, "undated". "Statistical Theory for the RCT-YES Software: Design-Based Causal Inference for RCTs," Mathematica Policy Research Reports a0c005c003c242308a92c02dc, Mathematica Policy Research.
    3. Andrew P. Jaciw, 2016. "Assessing the Accuracy of Generalized Inferences From Comparison Group Studies Using a Within-Study Comparison Approach," Evaluation Review, , vol. 40(3), pages 199-240, June.
    4. Apps, Patricia & Mendolia, Silvia & Walker, Ian, 2013. "The impact of pre-school on adolescents’ outcomes: Evidence from a recent English cohort," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 183-199.
    5. Katherine Baicker & Theodore Svoronos, 2019. "Testing the Validity of the Single Interrupted Time Series Design," NBER Working Papers 26080, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Denis Fougère & Nicolas Jacquemet, 2020. "Policy Evaluation Using Causal Inference Methods," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-03455978, HAL.
    7. Gonzalo Nunez-Chaim & Henry G. Overman & Capucine Riom, 2024. "Does subsidising business advice improve firm performance? Evidence from a large RCT," CEP Discussion Papers dp1977, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    8. Ben Weidmann & Luke Miratrix, 2021. "Lurking Inferential Monsters? Quantifying Selection Bias In Evaluations Of School Programs," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 40(3), pages 964-986, June.
    9. Mary Ying-Fang Wang & Paul Tuss & Lihong Qi, 2019. "Augmented Weighted Estimators Dealing with Practical Positivity Violation to Causal inferences in a Random Coefficient Model," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 84(2), pages 447-467, June.
    10. Cousineau, Martin & Verter, Vedat & Murphy, Susan A. & Pineau, Joelle, 2023. "Estimating causal effects with optimization-based methods: A review and empirical comparison," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 304(2), pages 367-380.
    11. Ranjbar, Setareh & Salvati, Nicola & Pacini, Barbara, 2023. "Estimating heterogeneous causal effects in observational studies using small area predictors," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    12. Peter M. Steiner, 2011. "Propensity Score Methods for Causal Inference: On the Relative Importance of Covariate Selection, Reliable Measurement, and Choice of Propensity Score Technique," Working Papers 09, AlmaLaurea Inter-University Consortium.
    13. Chen, Jun & Hshieh, Shenje & Zhang, Feng, 2021. "The role of high-skilled foreign labor in startup performance: Evidence from two natural experiments," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(1), pages 430-452.
    14. Arpino, Bruno & Mealli, Fabrizia, 2011. "The specification of the propensity score in multilevel observational studies," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 55(4), pages 1770-1780, April.
    15. Nicoletta Balbo & Bruno Arpino, 2016. "The Role of Family Orientations in Shaping the Effect of Fertility on Subjective Well-being: A Propensity Score Matching Approach," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 53(4), pages 955-978, August.
    16. Jared Coopersmith & Thomas D. Cook & Jelena Zurovac & Duncan Chaplin & Lauren V. Forrow, 2022. "Internal And External Validity Of The Comparative Interrupted Time‐Series Design: A Meta‐Analysis," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 41(1), pages 252-277, January.
    17. Fatih Unlu & Douglas Lee Lauen & Sarah Crittenden Fuller & Tiffany Berglund & Elc Estrera, 2021. "Can Quasi‐Experimental Evaluations That Rely On State Longitudinal Data Systems Replicate Experimental Results?," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 40(2), pages 572-613, March.
    18. Fortson, Kenneth & Gleason, Philip & Kopa, Emma & Verbitsky-Savitz, Natalya, 2015. "Horseshoes, hand grenades, and treatment effects? Reassessing whether nonexperimental estimators are biased," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 100-113.
    19. Mäkinen, Taneli & Li, Fan & Mercatanti, Andrea & Silvestrini, Andrea, 2022. "Causal analysis of central bank holdings of corporate bonds under interference," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    20. Deaton, Angus & Cartwright, Nancy, 2018. "Understanding and misunderstanding randomized controlled trials," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 210(C), pages 2-21.

    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:sae:evarev:v:44:y:2020:i:1:p:84-108. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.