The Annals of Applied Statistics

Covariate balancing propensity score for a continuous treatment: Application to the efficacy of political advertisements

Christian Fong, Chad Hazlett, and Kosuke Imai

Full-text: Access denied (no subscription detected)

We're sorry, but we are unable to provide you with the full text of this article because we are not able to identify you as a subscriber. If you have a personal subscription to this journal, then please login. If you are already logged in, then you may need to update your profile to register your subscription. Read more about accessing full-text

Abstract

Propensity score matching and weighting are popular methods when estimating causal effects in observational studies. Beyond the assumption of unconfoundedness, however, these methods also require the model for the propensity score to be correctly specified. The recently proposed covariate balancing propensity score (CBPS) methodology increases the robustness to model misspecification by directly optimizing sample covariate balance between the treatment and control groups. In this paper, we extend the CBPS to a continuous treatment. We propose the covariate balancing generalized propensity score (CBGPS) methodology, which minimizes the association between covariates and the treatment. We develop both parametric and nonparametric approaches and show their superior performance over the standard maximum likelihood estimation in a simulation study. The CBGPS methodology is applied to an observational study, whose goal is to estimate the causal effects of political advertisements on campaign contributions. We also provide open-source software that implements the proposed methods.

Article information

Source
Ann. Appl. Stat. Volume 12, Number 1 (2018), 156-177.

Dates
Received: January 2017
Revised: June 2017
First available in Project Euclid: 9 March 2018

Permanent link to this document
https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.aoas/1520564468

Digital Object Identifier
doi:10.1214/17-AOAS1101

Keywords
Causal inference covariate balance generalized propensity score inverse-probability weighting treatment effect

Citation

Fong, Christian; Hazlett, Chad; Imai, Kosuke. Covariate balancing propensity score for a continuous treatment: Application to the efficacy of political advertisements. Ann. Appl. Stat. 12 (2018), no. 1, 156--177. doi:10.1214/17-AOAS1101. https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.aoas/1520564468


Export citation

References

  • Abadie, A. and Imbens, G. W. (2006). Large sample properties of matching estimators for average treatment effects. Econometrica 74 235–267.
  • Boyd, C. L., Epstein, L. and Martin, A. D. (2010). Untangling the causal effects of sex on judging. Amer. J. Polit. Sci. 54 389–411.
  • Chan, K. C. G., Yam, S. C. P. and Zhang, Z. (2016). Globally efficient non-parametric inference of average treatment effects by empirical balancing calibration weighting. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B. Stat. Methodol. 78 673–700.
  • De, P. K. and Ratha, D. (2012). Impact of remittances on household income, asset, and human capital: Evidence from Sri Lanka. Migr. Dev. 1 163–179.
  • Donohue III, J. J. and Ho, D. E. (2007). The impact of damage caps on malpractice claims: Randomization inferences with difference-in-differences. J. Empir. Leg. Stud. 4 69–102.
  • Fan, J., Imai, K., Liu, H., Ning, Y. and Yang, X. (2016). Improving covariate balancing propensity score: A doubly robust and efficient approach. Technical report, Princeton Univ.
  • Fong, C., Hazlett, C. and Imai, K. (2018). Replication data for: Covariate balancing propensity score for a continuous treatment. DOI:10.7910/DVN/AIF4PI.
  • Fong, C., Ratkovic, M., Hazlett, C. and Imai, K. (2017). CBPS: R package for covariate balancing propensity score. Available at the Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN): https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=CBPS.
  • Graham, B. S., Pinto, C. and Egel, D. (2012). Inverse probability tilting for moment condition models with missing data. Rev. Econ. Stud. 79 1053–1079.
  • Hainmueller, J. (2012). Entropy balancing for causal effects: Multivariate reweighting method to produce balanced samples in observational studies. Polit. Anal. 20 25–46.
  • Harder, V. S., Stuart, E. A. and Anthony, J. C. (2008). Adolescent cannabis problems and young adult depression: Male–female stratified propensity score analyses. Am. J. Epidemiol. 168 592–601.
  • Hazlett, C. (2016). Kernel balancing: A flexible non-parametric weighting procedure for estimating causal effects. Technical report, Depts. Statistics and Political Science, Univ. California Los Angeles.
  • Hirano, K. and Imbens, G. W. (2004). The propensity score with continuous treatments. In Applied Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference from Incomplete-Data Perspectives: An Essential Journey with Donald Rubin’s Statistical Family 73–84. Wiley, New York.
  • Hirano, K., Imbens, G. W. and Ridder, G. (2003). Efficient estimation of average treatment effects using the estimated propensity score. Econometrica 71 1161–1189.
  • Ho, D. E., Imai, K., King, G. and Stuart, E. A. (2007). Matching as nonparametric preprocessing for reducing model dependence in parametric causal inference. Polit. Anal. 15 199–236.
  • Imai, K. and Ratkovic, M. (2014). Covariate balancing propensity score. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B. Stat. Methodol. 76 243–263.
  • Imai, K. and Ratkovic, M. (2015). Robust estimation of inverse probability weights for marginal structural models. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 110 1013–1023.
  • Imai, K. and van Dyk, D. A. (2004). Causal inference with general treatment regimes: Generalizing the propensity score. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 99 854–866.
  • Imbens, G. W. (2000). The role of the propensity score in estimating dose-response functions. Biometrika 87 706–710.
  • Imbens, G. W. (2004). Nonparametric estimation of average treatment effects under exogeneity: A review. Rev. Econ. Stat. 86 4–29.
  • Kang, J. D. Y. and Schafer, J. L. (2007). Demystifying double robustness: A comparison of alternative strategies for estimating a population mean from incomplete data. Statist. Sci. 22 523–539.
  • McCaffrey, D. F., Ridgeway, G. and Morral, A. R. (2004). Propensity score estimation with boosted regression for evaluating causal effects in observational studies. Psychol. Methods 9 403–425.
  • Newey, W. K. and McFadden, D. (1994). Large sample estimation and hypothesis testing. In Handbook of Econometrics, Vol. IV. Handbooks in Econom. 2 2111–2245. North-Holland, Amsterdam.
  • Nielsen, R. A., Findley, M. G., Davis, Z. S., Candland, T. and Nielson, D. L. (2011). Foreign aid shocks as a cause of violent armed conflict? Amer. J. Polit. Sci. 55 219–232.
  • Owen, A. B. (2001). Empirical Likelihood. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL.
  • Robins, J. M., Hernán, M. Á. and Brumback, B. (2000). Marginal structural models and causal inference in epidemiology. Epidemiology 11 550–560.
  • Rosenbaum, P. R. and Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70 41–55.
  • Rosenbaum, P. R. and Rubin, D. B. (1984). Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 79 516–524.
  • Rosenbaum, P. R. and Rubin, D. B. (1985). Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. Amer. Statist. 39 33–38.
  • Rubin, D. B. (1990). Comments on “On the application of probability theory to agricultural experiments. Essay on principles. Section 9” by J. Splawa-Neyman translated from the Polish and edited by D. M. Dabrowska and T. P. Speed. Statist. Sci. 5 472–480.
  • Smith, J. A. and Todd, P. E. (2005). Does matching overcome LaLonde’s critique of nonexperimental estimators? J. Econometrics 125 305–353.
  • Stuart, E. A. (2010). Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward. Statist. Sci. 25 1–21.
  • Tan, Z. (2010). Bounded, efficient and doubly robust estimation with inverse weighting. Biometrika 97 661–682.
  • Urban, C. and Niebler, S. (2014). Dollars on the sidewalk: Should US presidential candidates advertise in uncontested states? Amer. J. Polit. Sci. 58 322–336.
  • Zhao, Q. (2016). Covariate balancing propensity score by tailored loss functions. Technical report. Dept. Statistics, Stanford Univ.
  • Zhao, Q. and Percival, D. (2017). Entropy balancing is doubly robust. J. Causal Inference 5 20160010.
  • Zhu, Y., Coffman, D. L. and Ghosh, D. (2015). A boosting algorithm for estimating generalized propensity scores with continuous treatments. J. Causal Inference 3 25–40.
  • Zubizarreta, J. R. (2015). Stable weights that balance covariates for estimation with incomplete outcome data. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 110 910–922.