Matching Items (19)
Filtering by

Clear all filters

151957-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
Random Forests is a statistical learning method which has been proposed for propensity score estimation models that involve complex interactions, nonlinear relationships, or both of the covariates. In this dissertation I conducted a simulation study to examine the effects of three Random Forests model specifications in propensity score analysis. The

Random Forests is a statistical learning method which has been proposed for propensity score estimation models that involve complex interactions, nonlinear relationships, or both of the covariates. In this dissertation I conducted a simulation study to examine the effects of three Random Forests model specifications in propensity score analysis. The results suggested that, depending on the nature of data, optimal specification of (1) decision rules to select the covariate and its split value in a Classification Tree, (2) the number of covariates randomly sampled for selection, and (3) methods of estimating Random Forests propensity scores could potentially produce an unbiased average treatment effect estimate after propensity scores weighting by the odds adjustment. Compared to the logistic regression estimation model using the true propensity score model, Random Forests had an additional advantage in producing unbiased estimated standard error and correct statistical inference of the average treatment effect. The relationship between the balance on the covariates' means and the bias of average treatment effect estimate was examined both within and between conditions of the simulation. Within conditions, across repeated samples there was no noticeable correlation between the covariates' mean differences and the magnitude of bias of average treatment effect estimate for the covariates that were imbalanced before adjustment. Between conditions, small mean differences of covariates after propensity score adjustment were not sensitive enough to identify the optimal Random Forests model specification for propensity score analysis.
ContributorsCham, Hei Ning (Author) / Tein, Jenn-Yun (Thesis advisor) / Enders, Stephen G (Thesis advisor) / Enders, Craig K. (Committee member) / Mackinnon, David P (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2013
149971-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
Although the issue of factorial invariance has received increasing attention in the literature, the focus is typically on differences in factor structure across groups that are directly observed, such as those denoted by sex or ethnicity. While establishing factorial invariance across observed groups is a requisite step in making meaningful

Although the issue of factorial invariance has received increasing attention in the literature, the focus is typically on differences in factor structure across groups that are directly observed, such as those denoted by sex or ethnicity. While establishing factorial invariance across observed groups is a requisite step in making meaningful cross-group comparisons, failure to attend to possible sources of latent class heterogeneity in the form of class-based differences in factor structure has the potential to compromise conclusions with respect to observed groups and may result in misguided attempts at instrument development and theory refinement. The present studies examined the sensitivity of two widely used confirmatory factor analytic model fit indices, the chi-square test of model fit and RMSEA, to latent class differences in factor structure. Two primary questions were addressed. The first of these concerned the impact of latent class differences in factor loadings with respect to model fit in a single sample reflecting a mixture of classes. The second question concerned the impact of latent class differences in configural structure on tests of factorial invariance across observed groups. The results suggest that both indices are highly insensitive to class-based differences in factor loadings. Across sample size conditions, models with medium (0.2) sized loading differences were rejected by the chi-square test of model fit at rates just slightly higher than the nominal .05 rate of rejection that would be expected under a true null hypothesis. While rates of rejection increased somewhat when the magnitude of loading difference increased, even the largest sample size with equal class representation and the most extreme violations of loading invariance only had rejection rates of approximately 60%. RMSEA was also insensitive to class-based differences in factor loadings, with mean values across conditions suggesting a degree of fit that would generally be regarded as exceptionally good in practice. In contrast, both indices were sensitive to class-based differences in configural structure in the context of a multiple group analysis in which each observed group was a mixture of classes. However, preliminary evidence suggests that this sensitivity may contingent on the form of the cross-group model misspecification.
ContributorsBlackwell, Kimberly Carol (Author) / Millsap, Roger E (Thesis advisor) / Aiken, Leona S. (Committee member) / Enders, Craig K. (Committee member) / Mackinnon, David P (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2011
150618-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
Coarsely grouped counts or frequencies are commonly used in the behavioral sciences. Grouped count and grouped frequency (GCGF) that are used as outcome variables often violate the assumptions of linear regression as well as models designed for categorical outcomes; there is no analytic model that is designed specifically to accommodate

Coarsely grouped counts or frequencies are commonly used in the behavioral sciences. Grouped count and grouped frequency (GCGF) that are used as outcome variables often violate the assumptions of linear regression as well as models designed for categorical outcomes; there is no analytic model that is designed specifically to accommodate GCGF outcomes. The purpose of this dissertation was to compare the statistical performance of four regression models (linear regression, Poisson regression, ordinal logistic regression, and beta regression) that can be used when the outcome is a GCGF variable. A simulation study was used to determine the power, type I error, and confidence interval (CI) coverage rates for these models under different conditions. Mean structure, variance structure, effect size, continuous or binary predictor, and sample size were included in the factorial design. Mean structures reflected either a linear relationship or an exponential relationship between the predictor and the outcome. Variance structures reflected homoscedastic (as in linear regression), heteroscedastic (monotonically increasing) or heteroscedastic (increasing then decreasing) variance. Small to medium, large, and very large effect sizes were examined. Sample sizes were 100, 200, 500, and 1000. Results of the simulation study showed that ordinal logistic regression produced type I error, statistical power, and CI coverage rates that were consistently within acceptable limits. Linear regression produced type I error and statistical power that were within acceptable limits, but CI coverage was too low for several conditions important to the analysis of counts and frequencies. Poisson regression and beta regression displayed inflated type I error, low statistical power, and low CI coverage rates for nearly all conditions. All models produced unbiased estimates of the regression coefficient. Based on the statistical performance of the four models, ordinal logistic regression seems to be the preferred method for analyzing GCGF outcomes. Linear regression also performed well, but CI coverage was too low for conditions with an exponential mean structure and/or heteroscedastic variance. Some aspects of model prediction, such as model fit, were not assessed here; more research is necessary to determine which statistical model best captures the unique properties of GCGF outcomes.
ContributorsCoxe, Stefany (Author) / Aiken, Leona S. (Thesis advisor) / West, Stephen G. (Thesis advisor) / Mackinnon, David P (Committee member) / Reiser, Mark R. (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2012
155978-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
Though the likelihood is a useful tool for obtaining estimates of regression parameters, it is not readily available in the fit of hierarchical binary data models. The correlated observations negate the opportunity to have a joint likelihood when fitting hierarchical logistic regression models. Through conditional likelihood, inferences for the regression

Though the likelihood is a useful tool for obtaining estimates of regression parameters, it is not readily available in the fit of hierarchical binary data models. The correlated observations negate the opportunity to have a joint likelihood when fitting hierarchical logistic regression models. Through conditional likelihood, inferences for the regression and covariance parameters as well as the intraclass correlation coefficients are usually obtained. In those cases, I have resorted to use of Laplace approximation and large sample theory approach for point and interval estimates such as Wald-type confidence intervals and profile likelihood confidence intervals. These methods rely on distributional assumptions and large sample theory. However, when dealing with small hierarchical datasets they often result in severe bias or non-convergence. I present a generalized quasi-likelihood approach and a generalized method of moments approach; both do not rely on any distributional assumptions but only moments of response. As an alternative to the typical large sample theory approach, I present bootstrapping hierarchical logistic regression models which provides more accurate interval estimates for small binary hierarchical data. These models substitute computations as an alternative to the traditional Wald-type and profile likelihood confidence intervals. I use a latent variable approach with a new split bootstrap method for estimating intraclass correlation coefficients when analyzing binary data obtained from a three-level hierarchical structure. It is especially useful with small sample size and easily expanded to multilevel. Comparisons are made to existing approaches through both theoretical justification and simulation studies. Further, I demonstrate my findings through an analysis of three numerical examples, one based on cancer in remission data, one related to the China’s antibiotic abuse study, and a third related to teacher effectiveness in schools from a state of southwest US.
ContributorsWang, Bei (Author) / Wilson, Jeffrey R (Thesis advisor) / Kamarianakis, Ioannis (Committee member) / Reiser, Mark R. (Committee member) / St Louis, Robert (Committee member) / Zheng, Yi (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2017
156112-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
Understanding how adherence affects outcomes is crucial when developing and assigning interventions. However, interventions are often evaluated by conducting randomized experiments and estimating intent-to-treat effects, which ignore actual treatment received. Dose-response effects can supplement intent-to-treat effects when participants are offered the full dose but many only receive a

Understanding how adherence affects outcomes is crucial when developing and assigning interventions. However, interventions are often evaluated by conducting randomized experiments and estimating intent-to-treat effects, which ignore actual treatment received. Dose-response effects can supplement intent-to-treat effects when participants are offered the full dose but many only receive a partial dose due to nonadherence. Using these data, we can estimate the magnitude of the treatment effect at different levels of adherence, which serve as a proxy for different levels of treatment. In this dissertation, I conducted Monte Carlo simulations to evaluate when linear dose-response effects can be accurately and precisely estimated in randomized experiments comparing a no-treatment control condition to a treatment condition with partial adherence. Specifically, I evaluated the performance of confounder adjustment and instrumental variable methods when their assumptions were met (Study 1) and when their assumptions were violated (Study 2). In Study 1, the confounder adjustment and instrumental variable methods provided unbiased estimates of the dose-response effect across sample sizes (200, 500, 2,000) and adherence distributions (uniform, right skewed, left skewed). The adherence distribution affected power for the instrumental variable method. In Study 2, the confounder adjustment method provided unbiased or minimally biased estimates of the dose-response effect under no or weak (but not moderate or strong) unobserved confounding. The instrumental variable method provided extremely biased estimates of the dose-response effect under violations of the exclusion restriction (no direct effect of treatment assignment on the outcome), though less severe violations of the exclusion restriction should be investigated.
ContributorsMazza, Gina L (Author) / Grimm, Kevin J. (Thesis advisor) / West, Stephen G. (Thesis advisor) / Mackinnon, David P (Committee member) / Tein, Jenn-Yun (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2018
156371-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
Generalized Linear Models (GLMs) are widely used for modeling responses with non-normal error distributions. When the values of the covariates in such models are controllable, finding an optimal (or at least efficient) design could greatly facilitate the work of collecting and analyzing data. In fact, many theoretical results are obtained

Generalized Linear Models (GLMs) are widely used for modeling responses with non-normal error distributions. When the values of the covariates in such models are controllable, finding an optimal (or at least efficient) design could greatly facilitate the work of collecting and analyzing data. In fact, many theoretical results are obtained on a case-by-case basis, while in other situations, researchers also rely heavily on computational tools for design selection.

Three topics are investigated in this dissertation with each one focusing on one type of GLMs. Topic I considers GLMs with factorial effects and one continuous covariate. Factors can have interactions among each other and there is no restriction on the possible values of the continuous covariate. The locally D-optimal design structures for such models are identified and results for obtaining smaller optimal designs using orthogonal arrays (OAs) are presented. Topic II considers GLMs with multiple covariates under the assumptions that all but one covariate are bounded within specified intervals and interaction effects among those bounded covariates may also exist. An explicit formula for D-optimal designs is derived and OA-based smaller D-optimal designs for models with one or two two-factor interactions are also constructed. Topic III considers multiple-covariate logistic models. All covariates are nonnegative and there is no interaction among them. Two types of D-optimal design structures are identified and their global D-optimality is proved using the celebrated equivalence theorem.
ContributorsWang, Zhongsheng (Author) / Stufken, John (Thesis advisor) / Kamarianakis, Ioannis (Committee member) / Kao, Ming-Hung (Committee member) / Reiser, Mark R. (Committee member) / Zheng, Yi (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2018
156631-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
Mediation analysis is used to investigate how an independent variable, X, is related to an outcome variable, Y, through a mediator variable, M (MacKinnon, 2008). If X represents a randomized intervention it is difficult to make a cause and effect inference regarding indirect effects without making no unmeasured confounding assumptions

Mediation analysis is used to investigate how an independent variable, X, is related to an outcome variable, Y, through a mediator variable, M (MacKinnon, 2008). If X represents a randomized intervention it is difficult to make a cause and effect inference regarding indirect effects without making no unmeasured confounding assumptions using the potential outcomes framework (Holland, 1988; MacKinnon, 2008; Robins & Greenland, 1992; VanderWeele, 2015), using longitudinal data to determine the temporal order of M and Y (MacKinnon, 2008), or both. The goals of this dissertation were to (1) define all indirect and direct effects in a three-wave longitudinal mediation model using the causal mediation formula (Pearl, 2012), (2) analytically compare traditional estimators (ANCOVA, difference score, and residualized change score) to the potential outcomes-defined indirect effects, and (3) use a Monte Carlo simulation to compare the performance of regression and potential outcomes-based methods for estimating longitudinal indirect effects and apply the methods to an empirical dataset. The results of the causal mediation formula revealed the potential outcomes definitions of indirect effects are equivalent to the product of coefficient estimators in a three-wave longitudinal mediation model with linear and additive relations. It was demonstrated with analytical comparisons that the ANCOVA, difference score, and residualized change score models’ estimates of two time-specific indirect effects differ as a function of the respective mediator-outcome relations at each time point. The traditional model that performed the best in terms of the evaluation criteria in the Monte Carlo study was the ANCOVA model and the potential outcomes model that performed the best in terms of the evaluation criteria was sequential G-estimation. Implications and future directions are discussed.
ContributorsValente, Matthew J (Author) / Mackinnon, David P (Thesis advisor) / West, Stephen G. (Committee member) / Grimm, Keving (Committee member) / Chassin, Laurie (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2018
133570-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
In the last decade, the population of honey bees across the globe has declined sharply leaving scientists and bee keepers to wonder why? Amongst all nations, the United States has seen some of the greatest declines in the last 10 plus years. Without a definite explanation, Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD)

In the last decade, the population of honey bees across the globe has declined sharply leaving scientists and bee keepers to wonder why? Amongst all nations, the United States has seen some of the greatest declines in the last 10 plus years. Without a definite explanation, Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) was coined to explain the sudden and sharp decline of the honey bee colonies that beekeepers were experiencing. Colony collapses have been rising higher compared to expected averages over the years, and during the winter season losses are even more severe than what is normally acceptable. There are some possible explanations pointing towards meteorological variables, diseases, and even pesticide usage. Despite the cause of CCD being unknown, thousands of beekeepers have reported their losses, and even numbers of infected colonies and colonies under certain stressors in the most recent years. Using the data that was reported to The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), as well as weather data collected by The National Centers for Environmental Information (NOAA) and the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), regression analysis was used to investigate honey bee colonies to find relationships between stressors in honey bee colonies and meteorological variables, and colony collapses during the winter months. The regression analysis focused on the winter season, or quarter 4 of the year, which includes the months of October, November, and December. In the model, the response variables was the percentage of colonies lost in quarter 4. Through the model, it was concluded that certain weather thresholds and the percentage increase of colonies under certain stressors were related to colony loss.
ContributorsVasquez, Henry Antony (Author) / Zheng, Yi (Thesis director) / Saffell, Erinanne (Committee member) / School of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2018-05
134976-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
Problems related to alcohol consumption cause not only extra economic expenses, but are an expense to the health of both drinkers and non-drinkers due to the harm directly and indirectly caused by alcohol consumption. Investigating predictors and reasons for alcohol-related problems is of importance, as alcohol-related problems could be prevented

Problems related to alcohol consumption cause not only extra economic expenses, but are an expense to the health of both drinkers and non-drinkers due to the harm directly and indirectly caused by alcohol consumption. Investigating predictors and reasons for alcohol-related problems is of importance, as alcohol-related problems could be prevented by quitting or limiting consumption of alcohol. We were interested in predicting alcohol-related problems using multiple linear regression and regression trees, and then comparing the regressions to the tree. Impaired control, anxiety sensitivity, mother permissiveness, father permissiveness, gender, and age were included as predictors. The data used was comprised of participants (n=835) sampled from students at Arizona State University. A multiple linear regression without interactions, multiple linear regression with two-way interactions and squares, and a regression tree were used and compared. The regression and the tree had similar results. Multiple interactions of variables predicted alcohol-related problems. Overall, the tree was easier to interpret than the regressions, however, the regressions provided specific predicted alcohol-related problems scores, whereas the tree formed large groups and had a predicted alcohol-related problems score for each group. Nevertheless, the tree still predicted alcohol-related problems nearly as well, if not better than the regressions.
ContributorsVoorhies, Kirsten Reed (Author) / McCulloch, Robert (Thesis director) / Zheng, Yi (Committee member) / Patock-Peckham, Julie (Committee member) / School of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences (Contributor) / Department of Psychology (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2016-12
154939-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
The comparison of between- versus within-person relations addresses a central issue in psychological research regarding whether group-level relations among variables generalize to individual group members. Between- and within-person effects may differ in magnitude as well as direction, and contextual multilevel models can accommodate this difference. Contextual multilevel models have been

The comparison of between- versus within-person relations addresses a central issue in psychological research regarding whether group-level relations among variables generalize to individual group members. Between- and within-person effects may differ in magnitude as well as direction, and contextual multilevel models can accommodate this difference. Contextual multilevel models have been explicated mostly for cross-sectional data, but they can also be applied to longitudinal data where level-1 effects represent within-person relations and level-2 effects represent between-person relations. With longitudinal data, estimating the contextual effect allows direct evaluation of whether between-person and within-person effects differ. Furthermore, these models, unlike single-level models, permit individual differences by allowing within-person slopes to vary across individuals. This study examined the statistical performance of the contextual model with a random slope for longitudinal within-person fluctuation data.

A Monte Carlo simulation was used to generate data based on the contextual multilevel model, where sample size, effect size, and intraclass correlation (ICC) of the predictor variable were varied. The effects of simulation factors on parameter bias, parameter variability, and standard error accuracy were assessed. Parameter estimates were in general unbiased. Power to detect the slope variance and contextual effect was over 80% for most conditions, except some of the smaller sample size conditions. Type I error rates for the contextual effect were also high for some of the smaller sample size conditions. Conclusions and future directions are discussed.
ContributorsWurpts, Ingrid Carlson (Author) / Mackinnon, David P (Thesis advisor) / West, Stephen G. (Committee member) / Grimm, Kevin J. (Committee member) / Suk, Hye Won (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2016