Jacqueline M Burgette1,2, John S Preisser3, R Gary Rozier2. 1. Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 2. Department of Health Policy and Management, UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 3. Department of Biostatistics, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
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.
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.
Authors: Debra A Murphy; Lauren Harrell; Rachel Fintzy; Thomas R Belin; Alexis Gutierrez; Steven J Vitero; Vivek Shetty Journal: J Behav Health Serv Res Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 1.505
Authors: Sengwee Toh; Joshua J Gagne; Jeremy A Rassen; Bruce H Fireman; Martin Kulldorff; Jeffrey S Brown Journal: Med Care Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Jacqueline M Burgette; John S Preisser; Morris Weinberger; Rebecca S King; Jessica Y Lee; R Gary Rozier Journal: J Public Health Dent Date: 2018-04-16 Impact factor: 1.821
Authors: Richard Gary Rozier; Benjamin Alexander White; Mian Wang; Beau D Meyer; Jessica Y Lee Journal: J Public Health Dent Date: 2019-06-17 Impact factor: 1.821
Authors: Heather Holderness; Heather Angier; Nathalie Huguet; Jean O'Malley; Miguel Marino; Rachel Springer; Jennifer DeVoe Journal: Med Care Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: H Angier; J P O'Malley; M Marino; K J McConnell; E Cottrell; R L Jacob; S Likumahuwa-Ackman; J Heintzman; N Huguet; S R Bailey; J E DeVoe Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2016-11-09 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Jacqueline M Burgette; John S Preisser; Morris Weinberger; Rebecca S King; Jessica Y Lee; R Gary Rozier Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2017-04-28 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Jacqueline M Burgette; John S Preisser; Morris Weinberger; Rebecca S King; Jessica Y Lee; R Gary Rozier Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2017-02-16 Impact factor: 9.308