Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userProfiling Compliers in Instrumental Variables Designs
122
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Moritz Marbach
Publication date
2021
fields
Mathematical Statistics
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Instrumental variable (IV) analyses are becoming common in health services research and epidemiology. IV analyses can be used both to analyze randomized trials with noncompliance and as a form of natural experiment. In these analyses, investigators often adopt a monotonicity assumption, which implies that the relevant effect only applies to a subset of the study population known as compliers. Since the estimated effect is not the average treatment effect of the study population, it is important to compare the characteristics of compliers and non-compliers. Profiling compliers and non-compliers is necessary to understand what subpopulation the researcher is making inferences about, and an important first step in evaluating the external validity (or lack thereof) of the IV estimate for compliers. Here, we discuss the assumptions necessary for profiling, which are weaker than the assumptions necessary for identifying the local average treatment effect if the instrument is randomly assigned. We then outline a simple and general method to characterize compliers and noncompliers using baseline covariates. Next, we extend current methods by deriving standard errors for these estimates. We demonstrate these methods using an IV known as tendency to operate (TTO) from health services research.
rate research
Read More
Instrumental variables (IVs) are extensively used to estimate treatment effects when the treatment and outcome are confounded by unmeasured confounders; however, weak IVs are often encountered in empirical studies and may cause problems. Many studies have considered building a stronger IV from the original, possibly weak, IV in the design stage of a matched study at the cost of not using some of the samples in the analysis. It is widely accepted that strengthening an IV tends to render nonparametric tests more powerful and will increase the power of sensitivity analyses in large samples. In this article, we re-evaluate this conventional wisdom to bring new insights into this topic. We consider matched observational studies from three perspectives. First, we evaluate the trade-off between IV strength and sample size on nonparametric tests assuming the IV is valid and exhibit conditions under which strengthening an IV increases power and conversely conditions under which it decreases power. Second, we derive a necessary condition for a valid sensitivity analysis model with continuous doses. We show that the $Gamma$ sensitivity analysis model, which has been previously used to come to the conclusion that strengthening an IV increases the power of sensitivity analyses in large samples, does not apply to the continuous IV setting and thus this previously reached conclusion may be invalid. Third, we quantify the bias of the Wald estimator with a possibly invalid IV under an oracle and leverage it to develop a valid sensitivity analysis framework; under this framework, we show that strengthening an IV may amplify or mitigate the bias of the estimator, and may or may not increase the power of sensitivity analyses. We also discuss how to better adjust for the observed covariates when building an IV in matched studies.
Instrumental variable methods are widely used for inferring the causal effect of an exposure on an outcome when the observed relationship is potentially affected by unmeasured confounders. Existing instrumental variable methods for nonlinear outcome models require stringent identifiability conditions. We develop a robust causal inference framework for nonlinear outcome models, which relaxes the conventional identifiability conditions. We adopt a flexible semi-parametric potential outcome model and propose new identifiability conditions for identifying the model parameters and causal effects. We devise a novel three-step inference procedure for the conditional average treatment effect and establish the asymptotic normality of the proposed point estimator. We construct confidence intervals for the causal effect by the bootstrap method. The proposed method is demonstrated in a large set of simulation studies and is applied to study the causal effects of lipid levels on whether the glucose level is normal or high over a mice dataset.
Consider the problem of estimating the local average treatment effect with an instrument variable, where the instrument unconfoundedness holds after adjusting for a set of measured covariates. Several unknown functions of the covariates need to be estimated through regression models, such as instrument propensity score and treatment and outcome regression models. We develop a computationally tractable method in high-dimensional settings where the numbers of regression terms are close to or larger than the sample size. Our method exploits regularized calibrated estimation, which involves Lasso penalties but carefully chosen loss functions for estimating coefficient vectors in these regression models, and then employs a doubly robust estimator for the treatment parameter through augmented inverse probability weighting. We provide rigorous theoretical analysis to show that the resulting Wald confidence intervals are valid for the treatment parameter under suitable sparsity conditions if the instrument propensity score model is correctly specified, but the treatment and outcome regression models may be misspecified. For existing high-dimensional methods, valid confidence intervals are obtained for the treatment parameter if all three models are correctly specified. We evaluate the proposed methods via extensive simulation studies and an empirical application to estimate the returns to education.
This paper presents a simple method for carrying out inference in a wide variety of possibly nonlinear IV models under weak assumptions. The method is non-asymptotic in the sense that it provides a finite sample bound on the difference between the true and nominal probabilities of rejecting a correct null hypothesis. The method is a non-Studentized version of the Anderson-Rubin test but is motivated and analyzed differently. In contrast to the conventional Anderson-Rubin test, the method proposed here does not require restrictive distributional assumptions, linearity of the estimated model, or simultaneous equations. Nor does it require knowledge of whether the instruments are strong or weak. It does not require testing or estimating the strength of the instruments. The method can be applied to quantile IV models that may be nonlinear and can be used to test a parametric IV model against a nonparametric alternative. The results presented here hold in finite samples, regardless of the strength of the instruments.
Instrumental variable methods can identify causal effects even when the treatment and outcome are confounded. We study the problem of imperfect measurements of the binary instrumental variable, treatment or outcome. We first consider non-differential measurement errors, that is, the mis-measured variable does not depend on other variables given its true value. We show that the measurement error of the instrumental variable does not bias the estimate, the measurement error of the treatment biases the estimate away from zero, and the measurement error of the outcome biases the estimate toward zero. Moreover, we derive sharp bounds on the causal effects without additional assumptions. These bounds are informative because they exclude zero. We then consider differential measurement errors, and focus on sensitivity analyses in those settings.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
