Bayesian Analysis

Generalized Quantile Treatment Effect: A Flexible Bayesian Approach Using Quantile Ratio Smoothing

Sergio Venturini, Francesca Dominici, and Giovanni Parmigiani

Full-text: Open access

Abstract

We propose a new general approach for estimating the effect of a binary treatment on a continuous and potentially highly skewed response variable, the generalized quantile treatment effect (GQTE). The GQTE is defined as the difference between a function of the quantiles under the two treatment conditions. As such, it represents a generalization over the standard approaches typically used for estimating a treatment effect (i.e., the average treatment effect and the quantile treatment effect) because it allows the comparison of any arbitrary characteristic of the outcome’s distribution under the two treatments. Following Dominici et al. (2005), we assume that a pre-specified transformation of the two quantiles is modeled as a smooth function of the percentiles. This assumption allows us to link the two quantile functions and thus to borrow information from one distribution to the other. The main theoretical contribution we provide is the analytical derivation of a closed form expression for the likelihood of the model. Exploiting this result we propose a novel Bayesian inferential methodology for the GQTE. We show some finite sample properties of our approach through a simulation study which confirms that in some cases it performs better than other nonparametric methods. As an illustration we finally apply our methodology to the 1987 National Medicare Expenditure Survey data to estimate the difference in the single hospitalization medical cost distributions between cases (i.e., subjects affected by smoking attributable diseases) and controls.

Article information

Source
Bayesian Anal., Volume 10, Number 3 (2015), 523-552.

Dates
First available in Project Euclid: 2 February 2015

Permanent link to this document
https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.ba/1422884982

Digital Object Identifier
doi:10.1214/14-BA922

Mathematical Reviews number (MathSciNet)
MR3420815

Zentralblatt MATH identifier
1334.62045

Keywords
average treatment effect (ATE) medical expenditures National Medical Expenditures Survey (NMES) Q-Q plot quantile function quantile treatment effect (QTE) tailweight

Citation

Venturini, Sergio; Dominici, Francesca; Parmigiani, Giovanni. Generalized Quantile Treatment Effect: A Flexible Bayesian Approach Using Quantile Ratio Smoothing. Bayesian Anal. 10 (2015), no. 3, 523--552. doi:10.1214/14-BA922. https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.ba/1422884982


Export citation

References

  • Abadie, A., Angrist, J. D., and Imbens, G. (2002). “Instrumental variables estimates of the effect of subsidized training on the quantiles of trainee earnings.” Econometrica, 70: 91–117.
  • Angrist, J. D. and Pischke, J.-S. (2009). Mostly harmless econometrics. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
  • Brys, G., Hubert, M., and Struyf, A. (2006). “Robust measures of tail weight.” Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 50(3): 733–759.
  • Cameron, C. A. and Trivedi, P. K. (2005). Microeconometrics. Cambridge University Press, New York.
  • Carlin, B. P. and Louis, T. A. (2009). Bayesian methods for data analysis. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, Third edition.
  • Chen, Y. and Dunson, D. B. (2009). “Nonparametric Bayes conditional distribution modeling with variable selection.” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 104(488): 1646–1660.
  • Chernozhukov, V. and Hansen, C. (2005). “An IV model of quantile treatment effects.” Econometrica, 73: 245–261.
  • De Iorio, M., Müller, P., Ronser, G. L., and MacEachern, S. N. (2004). “An ANOVA model for dependent random measures.” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 99(465): 205–215.
  • Devroye, L. and Lugosi, G. (2001). Combinatorial methods in density estimation. Springer.
  • Dominici, F., Cope, L., Naiman, D. Q., and Zeger, S. L. (2005). “Smooth quantile ratio estimation (SQUARE).” Biometrika, 92: 543–557.
  • Dominici, F. and Zeger, S. L. (2005). “Smooth quantile ratio estimation with regression: estimating medical expenditures for smoking-attributable diseases.” Biostatistics, 6: 505–519.
  • Dominici, F., Zeger, S. L., Parmigiani, G., Katz, J., and Christian, P. (2006). “Estimating percentile-specific treatment effects in counterfactual models: a case-study of micronutrient supplementation, birth weight and infant mortality.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics), 55: 261–280.
  • — (2007). “Does the effect of micronutrient supplementation on neonatal survival vary with respect to the percentiles of the birth weight distribution?” Bayesian Analysis, 2: 1–30.
  • Firpo, S. (2007). “Efficient semiparametric estimation of quantile treatment effects.” Econometrica, 75: 259–276.
  • Frölich, M. and Melly, B. (2008). “Unconditional quantile treatment effects under endogeneity.” Technical Report 3288, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), P.O. Box 7240, 53072 Bonn, Germany.
  • Gelman, A., Carlin, J. B., Stern, H. S., Dunson, D. B., Vehtari, A., and Rubin, D. B. (2013). Bayesian data analysis. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, Third edition.
  • Gilchrist, W. G. (2000). Statistical modelling with quantile functions. Chapman & Hall/CRC, New York.
  • Gilks, W. R., Richardson, S., and Spiegelhalter, D. J. (eds.) (1996). Markov Chain Monte Carlo in practice. Chapman & Hall/CRC, New York.
  • Green, P. J. (1995). “Reversible jump MCMC computation and Bayesian model determination.” Biometrika, 82(4): 711–732.
  • Koenker, R. (2005). Quantile regression. Cambridge University Press, New York.
  • Koenker, R. and Bassett, G. S. (1978). “Regression quantiles.” Econometrica, 46: 33–50.
  • MacEachern, S. N. (1999). “Dependent Nonparametric Processes.” In ASA Proceedings of the Section on Bayesian Statistical Science. Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association.
  • Machado, J. and Mata, J. (2005). “Counterfactual decompositions of changes in wage distributions using quantile regression.” Journal of Applied Econometrics, 20: 445–465.
  • Mullahy, J. (1998). “Much ado about two: reconsidering retransformation and the two-part model in health econometrics.” Journal of Health Economics, 17: 247–281.
  • National Center For Health Services Research (1987). National Medical Expenditure Survey. National Center for Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment.
  • O’Hagan, G. and Forster, J. (2004). Bayesian inference. Arnold, London, Second edition.
  • Parzen, E. (1979). “Nonparametric statistical data modeling.” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74: 105–121.
  • — (2004). “Quantile probability and statistical data modeling.” Statistical Science, 19: 652–662.
  • Robert, C. P. and Casella, G. (2004). Monte Carlo statistical methods. Springer, New York, Second edition.
  • Rosenbaum, P. (2002). Observational studies. Springer, New York.
  • — (2010). Design of observational studies. Springer, New York.
  • Rubin, D. B. (2006). Matched sampling for causal effects. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
  • Sethuraman, J. (1994). “A constructive definition of Dirichlet priors.” Statistica Sinica, 4: 639–650.
  • Shorack, G. R. (2000). Probability for statisticians. Springer, New York.
  • Venturini, S., Dominici, F., and Parmigiani, G. (2008). “Gamma shape mixtures for heavy-tailed distributions.” Annals of Applied Statistics, 2: 756–776.
  • Wang, J. and Serfling, R. (2005). “Nonparametric multivariate kurtosis and tailweight measures.” Journal of Nonparametric Statistics, 17: 441–456.
  • Wooldridge, J. M. (2010). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. MIT Press, Second edition.