The Role of Sample Size to Attain Statistically Comparable Groups - A Required Data Preprocessing Step to Estimate Causal Effects With Observational Data.

IF 3 4区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Evaluation Review Pub Date : 2021-10-01 Epub Date: 2021-10-26 DOI:10.1177/0193841X211053937
Ana Kolar, Peter M Steiner
{"title":"The Role of Sample Size to Attain Statistically Comparable Groups - A Required Data Preprocessing Step to Estimate Causal Effects With Observational Data.","authors":"Ana Kolar,&nbsp;Peter M Steiner","doi":"10.1177/0193841X211053937","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Propensity score methods provide data preprocessing tools to remove selection bias and attain statistically comparable groups - the first requirement when attempting to estimate causal effects with observational data. Although guidelines exist on how to remove selection bias when groups in comparison are large, not much is known on how to proceed when one of the groups in comparison, for example, a treated group, is particularly small, or when the study also includes lots of observed covariates (relative to the treated group's sample size). <b>Objectives:</b> This article investigates whether propensity score methods can help us to remove selection bias in studies with small treated groups and large amount of observed covariates. <b>Measures:</b> We perform a series of simulation studies to study factors such as sample size ratio of control to treated units, number of observed covariates and initial imbalances in observed covariates between the groups of units in comparison, that is, selection bias. <b>Results:</b> The results demonstrate that selection bias can be removed with small treated samples, but under different conditions than in studies with large treated samples. For example, a study design with 10 observed covariates and eight treated units will require the control group to be at least 10 times larger than the treated group, whereas a study with 500 treated units will require at least, only, two times bigger control group. <b>Conclusions:</b> To confirm the usefulness of simulation study results for practice, we carry out an empirical evaluation with real data. The study provides insights for practice and directions for future research.</p>","PeriodicalId":47533,"journal":{"name":"Evaluation Review","volume":"45 5","pages":"195-227"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evaluation Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X211053937","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/10/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Propensity score methods provide data preprocessing tools to remove selection bias and attain statistically comparable groups - the first requirement when attempting to estimate causal effects with observational data. Although guidelines exist on how to remove selection bias when groups in comparison are large, not much is known on how to proceed when one of the groups in comparison, for example, a treated group, is particularly small, or when the study also includes lots of observed covariates (relative to the treated group's sample size). Objectives: This article investigates whether propensity score methods can help us to remove selection bias in studies with small treated groups and large amount of observed covariates. Measures: We perform a series of simulation studies to study factors such as sample size ratio of control to treated units, number of observed covariates and initial imbalances in observed covariates between the groups of units in comparison, that is, selection bias. Results: The results demonstrate that selection bias can be removed with small treated samples, but under different conditions than in studies with large treated samples. For example, a study design with 10 observed covariates and eight treated units will require the control group to be at least 10 times larger than the treated group, whereas a study with 500 treated units will require at least, only, two times bigger control group. Conclusions: To confirm the usefulness of simulation study results for practice, we carry out an empirical evaluation with real data. The study provides insights for practice and directions for future research.

样本量的作用,以获得统计上可比组-一个必要的数据预处理步骤,以估计因果效应的观察数据。
背景:倾向评分方法提供了数据预处理工具,以消除选择偏差并获得统计上可比较的组-这是试图用观察数据估计因果关系时的第一个要求。虽然存在关于在比较组较大时如何消除选择偏差的指导方针,但当比较组中的一个,例如,治疗组,特别小,或者当研究还包括许多观察到的协变量(相对于治疗组的样本量)时,如何进行却知之甚少。目的:本文探讨倾向评分方法是否可以帮助我们在小治疗组和大量观察协变量的研究中消除选择偏倚。措施:我们进行了一系列的模拟研究,以研究诸如对照单位与治疗单位的样本量比、观察到的协变量数量以及比较单位组之间观察到的协变量的初始失衡等因素,即选择偏差。结果:结果表明,小处理样本可以消除选择偏差,但在不同的条件下,与大处理样本的研究。例如,一个有10个观察协变量和8个治疗单位的研究设计要求对照组至少比治疗组大10倍,而一个有500个治疗单位的研究只需要至少比治疗组大2倍的对照组。结论:为了验证模拟研究结果对实践的有效性,我们使用真实数据进行了实证评估。本研究为实践提供了启示,也为今后的研究提供了方向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Evaluation Review
Evaluation Review SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
80
期刊介绍: Evaluation Review is the forum for researchers, planners, and policy makers engaged in the development, implementation, and utilization of studies aimed at the betterment of the human condition. The Editors invite submission of papers reporting the findings of evaluation studies in such fields as child development, health, education, income security, manpower, mental health, criminal justice, and the physical and social environments. In addition, Evaluation Review will contain articles on methodological developments, discussions of the state of the art, and commentaries on issues related to the application of research results. Special features will include periodic review essays, "research briefs", and "craft reports".
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信