Propensity Score Methods and Difference-in-Differences with an Exogenous Time-Varying Confounder: Evaluation of Methods

被引:3
作者
Boedeker, Peter [1 ]
机构
[1] Baylor Coll Med, Dept Educ Innovat & Technol, Houston, TX 77030 USA
关键词
Quasi-experimental; difference-in-difference; matching; propensity score; confounder; causal inference; CAUSAL; DESIGNS;
D O I
10.1080/19345747.2022.2128485
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
Quasi-experimental designs (QEDs) are used to estimate a treatment effect without randomization. Confounders have a causal relationship with the outcome and probability of treatment adoption and if unaccounted for can bias treatment effect estimates. A variable considered a confounder prior to treatment can change after treatment has occurred (i.e., a time-varying confounder) not as a result of treatment (what we call an exogenous time-varying confounder). If the post-treatment value causally affects the outcome to change and this post-treatment value of the exogenous time-varying confounder is unaccounted for, then the treatment effect may be biased. We review the Rubin Causal Model and QED assumptions and the effect an exogenous time-varying confounder has on the ability of QEDs to produce an appropriate counterfactual. We conduct a simulation study evaluating propensity score and difference-in-differences based methods for estimating a treatment effect with an exogenous time-varying confounder. Propensity score weighted two-way fixed effects, inverse probability weighted, or doubly robust difference-in-differences methods, each with propensity scores estimated using post-implementation values of the exogenous time-varying confounder, proved least biased when the exogenous time-varying confounder changed differentially for members of the treatment and control groups.
引用
收藏
页码:377 / 397
页数:21
相关论文
共 27 条
[1]   Semiparametric difference-in-differences estimators [J].
Abadie, A .
REVIEW OF ECONOMIC STUDIES, 2005, 72 (01) :1-19
[2]  
Angrist JD, 2009, MOSTLY HARMLESS ECONOMETRICS: AN EMPIRICISTS COMPANION, P1
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2014, R LANG ENV STAT COMP, V2014
[4]   An Introduction to Propensity Score Methods for Reducing the Effects of Confounding in Observational Studies [J].
Austin, Peter C. .
MULTIVARIATE BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH, 2011, 46 (03) :399-424
[5]   Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies [J].
Austin, Peter C. .
PHARMACEUTICAL STATISTICS, 2011, 10 (02) :150-161
[6]  
Caetano C, 2024, Arxiv, DOI [arXiv:2202.02903, DOI 10.48550/ARXIV.2202.02903]
[7]   Difference-in-Differences with multiple time periods [J].
Callaway, Brantly ;
Sant'Anna, Pedro H. C. .
JOURNAL OF ECONOMETRICS, 2021, 225 (02) :200-230
[8]   Two-Way Fixed Effects Estimators with Heterogeneous Treatment Effects [J].
De Chaisemartin, Clement ;
D'Haultfoeuille, Xavier .
AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW, 2020, 110 (09) :2964-2996
[9]   Difference-in-differences with variation in treatment timing [J].
Goodman-Bacon, Andrew .
JOURNAL OF ECONOMETRICS, 2021, 225 (02) :254-277
[10]   Use of Quasi-Experimental Research Designs in Education Research: Growth, Promise, and Challenges [J].
Gopalan, Maithreyi ;
Rosinger, Kelly ;
Ahn, Jee Bin .
EMERGENT APPROACHES FOR EDUCATION RESEARCH: WHAT COUNTS AS INNOVATIVE EDUCATIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND WHAT EDUCATION RESEARCH COUNTS?, 2020, 44 :218-243