IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/ifauwp/2009_012.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Sensitivity analysis of the unconfoundedness assumption in observational studies

Author

Listed:
  • de Luna, Xavier

    (Department of Statistics, Umeå University)

  • Lundin, Mathias

    (Department of Statistics, Umeå University)

Abstract

In observational studies, the estimation of a treatment effect on an outcome of interest is often done by controlling on a set of pre-treatment characteristics (covariates). This yields an unbiased estimator of the treatment effect when the assumption of unconfoundedness holds, that is, there are no unobserved covariates affecting both the treatment assignment and the outcome. This is in general not realistically testable. It is, therefore, important to conduct an analysis about how sensitive the inference is with respect to the unconfoundedness assumption. In this paper we propose a procedure to conduct such a Bayesian sensitivity analysis, where the usual parameter uncertainty and the uncertainty due to the unconfoundedness assumption can be compared. To measure departures from the assumption we use a correlation coefficient which is intuitively comprehensible and ensures that the results of sensitivity analyses made on different evaluation studies are comparable. Our procedure is applied to the Lalonde data and to a study of the effect of college choice on income in Sweden.

Suggested Citation

  • de Luna, Xavier & Lundin, Mathias, 2009. "Sensitivity analysis of the unconfoundedness assumption in observational studies," Working Paper Series 2009:12, IFAU - Institute for Evaluation of Labour Market and Education Policy.
    • Handle: RePEc:hhs:ifauwp:2009_012
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ifau.se/upload/pdf/se/2009/wp09-12.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. LaLonde, Robert J, 1986. "Evaluating the Econometric Evaluations of Training Programs with Experimental Data," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(4), pages 604-620, September.
    2. Sander Greenland, 2005. "Multiple‐bias modelling for analysis of observational data," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 168(2), pages 267-306, March.
    3. Guildo W. Imbens, 2003. "Sensitivity to Exogeneity Assumptions in Program Evaluation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(2), pages 126-132, May.
    4. John Copas & Shinto Eguchi, 2005. "Local model uncertainty and incomplete‐data bias (with discussion)," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 67(4), pages 459-513, September.
    5. John Copas & Shinto Eguchi, 2001. "Local sensitivity approximations for selectivity bias," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 63(4), pages 871-895.
    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. Patrik Gustavsson Tingvall & Josefin Videnord, 2020. "Regional differences in effects of publicly sponsored R&D grants on SME performance," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 54(4), pages 951-969, April.

    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. Xavier de Luna & Mathias Lundin, 2014. "Sensitivity analysis of the unconfoundedness assumption with an application to an evaluation of college choice effects on earnings," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(8), pages 1767-1784, August.
    2. 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.
    3. Richard K. Crump & V. Joseph Hotz & Guido W. Imbens & Oscar A. Mitnik, 2009. "Dealing with limited overlap in estimation of average treatment effects," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 96(1), pages 187-199.
    4. Tommaso Nannicini, 2007. "Simulation-based sensitivity analysis for matching estimators," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 7(3), pages 334-350, September.
    5. Guido W. Imbens & Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2009. "Recent Developments in the Econometrics of Program Evaluation," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(1), pages 5-86, March.
    6. Guido W. Imbens, 2022. "Causality in Econometrics: Choice vs Chance," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 90(6), pages 2541-2566, November.
    7. Matthew A. Masten & Alexandre Poirier, 2020. "Inference on breakdown frontiers," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 11(1), pages 41-111, January.
    8. Myoung-jae Lee, 2007. "Difference in Generalized-Differences with Panel Data: Effects of Moving from Private to Public School on Test Scores," Discussion Paper Series 0721, Institute of Economic Research, Korea University.
    9. Caliendo, Marco & Mahlstedt, Robert & Mitnik, Oscar A., 2017. "Unobservable, but unimportant? The relevance of usually unobserved variables for the evaluation of labor market policies," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 14-25.
    10. Firpo, Sergio & Galvao, Antonio F. & Parker, Thomas, 2023. "Uniform inference for value functions," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 235(2), pages 1680-1699.
    11. Vikström, Johan, 2009. "Cluster sample inference using sensitivity analysis: the case with few groups," Working Paper Series 2009:15, IFAU - Institute for Evaluation of Labour Market and Education Policy.
    12. Donald, Stephen G. & Hsu, Yu-Chin, 2014. "Estimation and inference for distribution functions and quantile functions in treatment effect models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 178(P3), pages 383-397.
    13. 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.
    14. Hee Youn Kwon & Jason J. Sauppe & Sheldon H. Jacobson, 2019. "Treatment Effect Decomposition and Bootstrap Hypothesis Testing in Observational Studies," Annals of Data Science, Springer, vol. 6(3), pages 491-511, September.
    15. Minna Genbäck & Elena Stanghellini & Xavier Luna, 2015. "Uncertainty intervals for regression parameters with non-ignorable missingness in the outcome," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 56(3), pages 829-847, August.
    16. Paul R. Rosenbaum, 2007. "Sensitivity Analysis for m-Estimates, Tests, and Confidence Intervals in Matched Observational Studies," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 63(2), pages 456-464, June.
    17. Brett R. Gordon & Florian Zettelmeyer & Neha Bhargava & Dan Chapsky, 2019. "A Comparison of Approaches to Advertising Measurement: Evidence from Big Field Experiments at Facebook," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(2), pages 193-225, March.
    18. Zhao, Zhong, 2008. "Sensitivity of propensity score methods to the specifications," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 98(3), pages 309-319, March.
    19. Paul Diegert & Matthew A. Masten & Alexandre Poirier, 2022. "Assessing Omitted Variable Bias when the Controls are Endogenous," Papers 2206.02303, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2023.
    20. Matthew A. Masten & Alexandre Poirier & Linqi Zhang, 2024. "Assessing Sensitivity to Unconfoundedness: Estimation and Inference," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(1), pages 1-13, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Causal inference; effects of college choice; propensity score; register data;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C11 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Bayesian Analysis: General
    • C15 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Statistical Simulation Methods: General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:hhs:ifauwp:2009_012. 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: Ali Ghooloo (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ifagvse.html .

    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.