{"title":"Propensity Score Methods and Difference-in-Differences with an Exogenous Time-Varying Confounder: Evaluation of Methods","authors":"Peter Boedeker","doi":"10.1080/19345747.2022.2128485","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract 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.","PeriodicalId":47260,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2022.2128485","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Abstract 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.
期刊介绍:
As the flagship publication for the Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness, the Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness (JREE) publishes original articles from the multidisciplinary community of researchers who are committed to applying principles of scientific inquiry to the study of educational problems. Articles published in JREE should advance our knowledge of factors important for educational success and/or improve our ability to conduct further disciplined studies of pressing educational problems. JREE welcomes manuscripts that fit into one of the following categories: (1) intervention, evaluation, and policy studies; (2) theory, contexts, and mechanisms; and (3) methodological studies. The first category includes studies that focus on process and implementation and seek to demonstrate causal claims in educational research. The second category includes meta-analyses and syntheses, descriptive studies that illuminate educational conditions and contexts, and studies that rigorously investigate education processes and mechanism. The third category includes studies that advance our understanding of theoretical and technical features of measurement and research design and describe advances in data analysis and data modeling. To establish a stronger connection between scientific evidence and educational practice, studies submitted to JREE should focus on pressing problems found in classrooms and schools. Studies that help advance our understanding and demonstrate effectiveness related to challenges in reading, mathematics education, and science education are especially welcome as are studies related to cognitive functions, social processes, organizational factors, and cultural features that mediate and/or moderate critical educational outcomes. On occasion, invited responses to JREE articles and rejoinders to those responses will be included in an issue.