The Importance of Covariate Selection in Controlling for Selection Bias in Observational Studies

被引:300
作者
Steiner, Peter M. [1 ,2 ]
Cook, Thomas D. [1 ]
Shadish, William R. [3 ]
Clark, M. H. [4 ]
机构
[1] Northwestern Univ, Inst Policy Res, Evanston, IL 60208 USA
[2] Inst Adv Studies, Vienna, Austria
[3] Univ Calif, Sch Social Sci Humanities & Arts, Merced, CA USA
[4] So Illinois Univ, Dept Psychol, Carbondale, IL 62901 USA
关键词
strong ignorability; selection bias; hidden bias; within-study comparison; propensity score; PROPENSITY SCORE METHODS; CAUSAL INFERENCE; MISSING DATA; DESIGN; SUBCLASSIFICATION; STATISTICS; ADJUSTMENT; MODELS; CHOICE;
D O I
10.1037/a0018719
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
The assumption of strongly ignorable treatment assignment is required for eliminating selection bias in observational studies. To meet this assumption, researchers often rely on a strategy of selecting covariates that they think will control for selection bias. Theory indicates that the most important covariates are those highly correlated with both the real selection process and the potential outcomes. However, when planning a study, it is rarely possible to identify such covariates with certainty. In this article, we report on an extensive reanalysis of a within-study comparison that contrasts a randomized experiment and a quasi-experiment. Various covariate sets were used to adjust for initial group differences in the quasi-experiment that was characterized by self-selection into treatment. The adjusted effect sizes were then compared with the experimental ones to identify which individual covariates, and which conceptually grouped sets of covariates, were responsible for the high degree of bias reduction achieved in the adjusted quasi-experiment. Such results provide strong clues about preferred strategies for identifying the covariates most likely to reduce bias when planning a study and when the true selection process is not known.
引用
收藏
页码:250 / 267
页数:18
相关论文
共 58 条
[1]   Are experiments the only option? A look at dropout prevention programs [J].
Agodini, R ;
Dynarski, M .
REVIEW OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS, 2004, 86 (01) :180-194
[2]   Comparison of a randomized and two quasi-experimental designs in a single outcome evaluation - Efficacy of a university-level remedial writing program [J].
Aiken, LS ;
West, SG ;
Schwalm, DE ;
Carroll, JL ;
Hsiung, S .
EVALUATION REVIEW, 1998, 22 (02) :207-244
[3]  
[Anonymous], 1992, Psychology Assessment, DOI [10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.26, DOI 10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.26, https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.26]
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2002, Springer Series in Statistics
[5]  
[Anonymous], APPL BAYESIAN MODELI
[6]  
[Anonymous], 2002, EXPT QUASIEXPERIMENT
[7]  
[Anonymous], 2005, Methodology (Gott), DOI DOI 10.1027/1614-1881.1.1.39
[8]  
[Anonymous], AR APT TEST RG 1 KIT
[9]  
[Anonymous], 123 U WISC I RES POV
[10]  
[Anonymous], VOC TEST 2 V 2 KIT F