IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jnlasa/v113y2018i523p1070-1084.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cross-Screening in Observational Studies That Test Many Hypotheses

Author

Listed:
  • Qingyuan Zhao
  • Dylan S. Small
  • Paul R. Rosenbaum

Abstract

We discuss observational studies that test many causal hypotheses, either hypotheses about many outcomes or many treatments. To be credible an observational study that tests many causal hypotheses must demonstrate that its conclusions are neither artifacts of multiple testing nor of small biases from nonrandom treatment assignment. In a sense that needs to be defined carefully, hidden within a sensitivity analysis for nonrandom assignment is an enormous correction for multiple testing: In the absence of bias, it is extremely improbable that multiple testing alone would create an association insensitive to moderate biases. We propose a new strategy called “cross-screening,” different from but motivated by recent work of Bogomolov and Heller on replicability. Cross-screening splits the data in half at random, uses the first half to plan a study carried out on the second half, then uses the second half to plan a study carried out on the first half, and reports the more favorable conclusions of the two studies correcting using the Bonferroni inequality for having done two studies. If the two studies happen to concur, then they achieve Bogomolov–Heller replicability; however, importantly, replicability is not required for strong control of the family-wise error rate, and either study alone suffices for firm conclusions. In randomized studies with just a few null hypotheses, cross-screening is not an attractive method when compared with conventional methods of multiplicity control. However, cross-screening has substantially higher power when hundreds or thousands of hypotheses are subjected to sensitivity analyses in an observational study of moderate size. We illustrate the technique by comparing 46 biomarkers in individuals who consume large quantities of fish versus little or no fish. The R package CrossScreening on CRAN implements the cross-screening method. Supplementary materials for this article, including a standardized description of the materials available for reproducing the work, are available as an online supplement.

Suggested Citation

  • Qingyuan Zhao & Dylan S. Small & Paul R. Rosenbaum, 2018. "Cross-Screening in Observational Studies That Test Many Hypotheses," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 113(523), pages 1070-1084, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:jnlasa:v:113:y:2018:i:523:p:1070-1084
    DOI: 10.1080/01621459.2017.1407770
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/01621459.2017.1407770
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/01621459.2017.1407770?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.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Siyu Heng & Hyunseung Kang & Dylan S. Small & Colin B. Fogarty, 2021. "Increasing power for observational studies of aberrant response: An adaptive approach," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 83(3), pages 482-504, July.
    2. Nicole E. Pashley & Luke W. Miratrix, 2021. "Insights on Variance Estimation for Blocked and Matched Pairs Designs," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 46(3), pages 271-296, June.

    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:taf:jnlasa:v:113:y:2018:i:523:p:1070-1084. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/UASA20 .

    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.