Propensity score weighting: An application to an Early Head Start dental study

Jacqueline M. Burgette, John S. Preisser, R. Gary Rozier

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  • 6 Citations

Abstract

Objectives Nonrandomized group assignment in intervention studies can lead to imbalances in preintervention covariates and biased effect estimates. We use propensity score estimation to account for such imbalances in an Early Head Start (EHS) dataset with rich pretreatment information. We compare propensity score results using standard logistic regression models (LRMs) versus generalized boosted models (GBMs). Methods We estimated propensity scores using 47 socio-demographic characteristics and EHS enrollment criteria obtained by parent interviews from a state-wide sample of 637 EHS and 930 Medicaid-matched control children. LRMs and GBMs were used to estimate propensity scores related to EHS enrollment. Performance of both approaches was evaluated via a) measures of balance of pretreatment covariate distributions between treated and control subjects, and b) stability of propensity score weights measured by the effective sample size. Results Distributions of all variables were balanced for EHS and non-EHS groups using propensity score weights calculated with LRM and GBM. Compared with LRM, GBM resulted in better balance between treated and propensity score-weighted control distributions. The effective sample size of the controls decreased from 930 subjects to 507 with GBM and to 335 with LRM. Conclusion Although propensity scores derived from GBM and LRM both effectively balanced observed preintervention covariates, GBM resulted in better covariate balance compared with LRM. GBM also resulted in a larger effective sample size of the control group compared with LRM. Propensity score weighting using GBM is an effective statistical method to reduce confounding due to imbalanced distributions of measured preintervention covariates in this EHS intervention study.

LanguageEnglish (US)
Pages17-29
Number of pages13
JournalJournal of public health dentistry
Volume76
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2016

Fingerprint

Propensity Score
Tooth
Logistic Models
Sample Size
Weights and Measures
Medicaid

Keywords

  • dental care for children
  • Early Head Start
  • health services research
  • nonparametric statistics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

Propensity score weighting : An application to an Early Head Start dental study. / Burgette, Jacqueline M.; Preisser, John S.; Rozier, R. Gary.

In: Journal of public health dentistry, Vol. 76, No. 1, 01.12.2016, p. 17-29.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{4d23d866d5984b2b82aa8257bdfb0645,
title = "Propensity score weighting: An application to an Early Head Start dental study",
abstract = "Objectives Nonrandomized group assignment in intervention studies can lead to imbalances in preintervention covariates and biased effect estimates. We use propensity score estimation to account for such imbalances in an Early Head Start (EHS) dataset with rich pretreatment information. We compare propensity score results using standard logistic regression models (LRMs) versus generalized boosted models (GBMs). Methods We estimated propensity scores using 47 socio-demographic characteristics and EHS enrollment criteria obtained by parent interviews from a state-wide sample of 637 EHS and 930 Medicaid-matched control children. LRMs and GBMs were used to estimate propensity scores related to EHS enrollment. Performance of both approaches was evaluated via a) measures of balance of pretreatment covariate distributions between treated and control subjects, and b) stability of propensity score weights measured by the effective sample size. Results Distributions of all variables were balanced for EHS and non-EHS groups using propensity score weights calculated with LRM and GBM. Compared with LRM, GBM resulted in better balance between treated and propensity score-weighted control distributions. The effective sample size of the controls decreased from 930 subjects to 507 with GBM and to 335 with LRM. Conclusion Although propensity scores derived from GBM and LRM both effectively balanced observed preintervention covariates, GBM resulted in better covariate balance compared with LRM. GBM also resulted in a larger effective sample size of the control group compared with LRM. Propensity score weighting using GBM is an effective statistical method to reduce confounding due to imbalanced distributions of measured preintervention covariates in this EHS intervention study.",
keywords = "dental care for children, Early Head Start, health services research, nonparametric statistics",
author = "Burgette, {Jacqueline M.} and Preisser, {John S.} and Rozier, {R. Gary}",
year = "2016",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/jphd.12106",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "76",
pages = "17--29",
journal = "Journal of Public Health Dentistry",
issn = "0022-4006",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Propensity score weighting

T2 - Journal of Public Health Dentistry

AU - Burgette,Jacqueline M.

AU - Preisser,John S.

AU - Rozier,R. Gary

PY - 2016/12/1

Y1 - 2016/12/1

N2 - Objectives Nonrandomized group assignment in intervention studies can lead to imbalances in preintervention covariates and biased effect estimates. We use propensity score estimation to account for such imbalances in an Early Head Start (EHS) dataset with rich pretreatment information. We compare propensity score results using standard logistic regression models (LRMs) versus generalized boosted models (GBMs). Methods We estimated propensity scores using 47 socio-demographic characteristics and EHS enrollment criteria obtained by parent interviews from a state-wide sample of 637 EHS and 930 Medicaid-matched control children. LRMs and GBMs were used to estimate propensity scores related to EHS enrollment. Performance of both approaches was evaluated via a) measures of balance of pretreatment covariate distributions between treated and control subjects, and b) stability of propensity score weights measured by the effective sample size. Results Distributions of all variables were balanced for EHS and non-EHS groups using propensity score weights calculated with LRM and GBM. Compared with LRM, GBM resulted in better balance between treated and propensity score-weighted control distributions. The effective sample size of the controls decreased from 930 subjects to 507 with GBM and to 335 with LRM. Conclusion Although propensity scores derived from GBM and LRM both effectively balanced observed preintervention covariates, GBM resulted in better covariate balance compared with LRM. GBM also resulted in a larger effective sample size of the control group compared with LRM. Propensity score weighting using GBM is an effective statistical method to reduce confounding due to imbalanced distributions of measured preintervention covariates in this EHS intervention study.

AB - Objectives Nonrandomized group assignment in intervention studies can lead to imbalances in preintervention covariates and biased effect estimates. We use propensity score estimation to account for such imbalances in an Early Head Start (EHS) dataset with rich pretreatment information. We compare propensity score results using standard logistic regression models (LRMs) versus generalized boosted models (GBMs). Methods We estimated propensity scores using 47 socio-demographic characteristics and EHS enrollment criteria obtained by parent interviews from a state-wide sample of 637 EHS and 930 Medicaid-matched control children. LRMs and GBMs were used to estimate propensity scores related to EHS enrollment. Performance of both approaches was evaluated via a) measures of balance of pretreatment covariate distributions between treated and control subjects, and b) stability of propensity score weights measured by the effective sample size. Results Distributions of all variables were balanced for EHS and non-EHS groups using propensity score weights calculated with LRM and GBM. Compared with LRM, GBM resulted in better balance between treated and propensity score-weighted control distributions. The effective sample size of the controls decreased from 930 subjects to 507 with GBM and to 335 with LRM. Conclusion Although propensity scores derived from GBM and LRM both effectively balanced observed preintervention covariates, GBM resulted in better covariate balance compared with LRM. GBM also resulted in a larger effective sample size of the control group compared with LRM. Propensity score weighting using GBM is an effective statistical method to reduce confounding due to imbalanced distributions of measured preintervention covariates in this EHS intervention study.

KW - dental care for children

KW - Early Head Start

KW - health services research

KW - nonparametric statistics

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84960475549&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84960475549&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/jphd.12106

DO - 10.1111/jphd.12106

M3 - Article

VL - 76

SP - 17

EP - 29

JO - Journal of Public Health Dentistry

JF - Journal of Public Health Dentistry

SN - 0022-4006

IS - 1

ER -