How should we estimate inverse probability weights with possibly misspecified propensity score models?

被引:0
|
作者
Katsumata, Hiroto [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Tokyo, Inst Social Sci, Tokyo, Japan
关键词
causal inference; difference of the convex functions algorithm; inverse probability weighting; Kullback-Leibler divergence; missing data; BALANCE;
D O I
10.1017/psrm.2024.23
中图分类号
D0 [政治学、政治理论];
学科分类号
0302 ; 030201 ;
摘要
Inverse probability weighting is a common remedy for missing data issues, notably in causal inference. Despite its prevalence, practical application is prone to bias from propensity score model misspecification. Recently proposed methods try to rectify this by balancing some moments of covariates between the target and weighted groups. Yet, bias persists without knowledge of the true outcome model. Drawing inspiration from the quasi maximum likelihood estimation with misspecified statistical models, I propose an estimation method minimizing a distance between true and estimated weights with possibly misspecified models. This novel approach mitigates bias and controls mean squared error by minimizing their upper bounds. As an empirical application, it gives new insights into the study of foreign occupation and insurgency in France.
引用
收藏
页数:22
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Retrospective Propensity Score Matching and the Selection of Surgical Procedures: How Precise Can a Propensity Estimate Be? Reply
    Kim, Hyung-Ho
    Son, Sang-Yong
    Ahn, Soyeon
    Han, Sang-Uk
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2014, 32 (28) : 3201 - +
  • [22] Use of Stabilized Inverse Propensity Scores as Weights to Directly Estimate Relative Risk and Its Confidence Intervals
    Xu, Stanley
    Ross, Colleen
    Raebel, Marsha A.
    Shetterly, Susan
    Blanchette, Christopher
    Smith, David
    VALUE IN HEALTH, 2010, 13 (02) : 273 - 277
  • [23] Propensity score diagnostics: The challenges we face when providing evidence that a propensity-based estimate is unbiased
    Granger, Emily
    Sergeant, Jamie C.
    Lunt, Mark
    PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY AND DRUG SAFETY, 2018, 27 : 25 - 25
  • [24] USE OF STABILIZED INVERSE PROPENSITY SCORES AS WEIGHTS TO DIRECTLY ESTIMATE RELATIVE RISK AND ITS CONFIDENCE INTERVALS
    Xu, S.
    Ross, C.
    Raebel, M. A.
    Shetterly, S.
    Blanchette, C. M.
    Smith, D. H.
    VALUE IN HEALTH, 2009, 12 (03) : A28 - A28
  • [25] How Should We Measure and Score Coronary Artery Calcium?
    Criqui, Michael H.
    Bhatia, Harpreet S.
    JACC-CARDIOVASCULAR IMAGING, 2022, 15 (03) : 501 - 503
  • [26] Should we prefer inverse models in quantitative LIBS analysis?
    Duponchel, Ludovic
    Bousquet, Bruno
    Pelascini, Frederic
    Motto-Ros, Vincent
    JOURNAL OF ANALYTICAL ATOMIC SPECTROMETRY, 2020, 35 (04) : 794 - 803
  • [27] How We Solve the Weights in Our Surrogate Models Matters
    Correia, Daniel
    Wilke, Daniel N.
    JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL DESIGN, 2019, 141 (07)
  • [28] Inverse probability treatment weighting versus propensity score matching in the sentinel system: A test case
    Bradley, Marie
    Menzin, Talia
    Kolonoski, Joy
    Shinde, Mayura
    Zhang, Rongmei
    Eworuke, Efe
    Graham, David
    Hou, Laura
    Ajao, Adebola
    Chang, Po-Yin
    Connolly, John
    PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY AND DRUG SAFETY, 2022, 31 : 214 - 214
  • [29] Survival analysis using inverse probability of treatment weighted methods based on the generalized propensity score
    Sugihara, Masahiro
    PHARMACEUTICAL STATISTICS, 2010, 9 (01) : 21 - 34
  • [30] Variance reduction in the inverse probability weighted estimators for the average treatment effect using the propensity score
    Liao, Jiangang
    Rohde, Charles
    BIOMETRICS, 2022, 78 (02) : 660 - 667