Matching Items (3)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: Moderation
- Creators: Cham, Hei Ning
- Creators: Barrera, Manuel
- Creators: Enders, Stephen G
- Member of: ASU Electronic Theses and Dissertations
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 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
Description
The use of bias indicators in psychological measurement has been contentious, with some researchers questioning whether they actually suppress or moderate the ability of substantive psychological indictors to discriminate (McGrath, Mitchell, Kim, & Hough, 2010). Bias indicators on the MMPI-2-RF (F-r, Fs, FBS-r, K-r, and L-r) were tested for suppression or moderation of the ability of the RC1 and NUC scales to discriminate between Epileptic Seizures (ES) and Non-epileptic Seizures (NES, a conversion disorder that is often misdiagnosed as ES). RC1 and NUC had previously been found to be the best scales on the MMPI-2-RF to differentiate between ES and NES, with optimal cut scores occurring at a cut score of 65 for RC1 (classification rate of 68%) and 85 for NUC (classification rate of 64%; Locke et al., 2010). The MMPI-2-RF was completed by 429 inpatients on the Epilepsy Monitoring Unit (EMU) at the Scottsdale Mayo Clinic Hospital, all of whom had confirmed diagnoses of ES or NES. Moderated logistic regression was used to test for moderation and logistic regression was used to test for suppression. Classification rates of RC1 and NUC were calculated at different bias level indicators to evaluate clinical utility for diagnosticians. No moderation was found. Suppression was found for F-r, Fs, K-r, and L-r with RC1, and for all variables with NUC. For F-r and Fs, the optimal RC1 and NUC cut scores increased at higher levels of bias, but tended to decrease at higher levels of K-r, L-r, and FBS-r. K-r provided the greatest suppression for RC1, as well as the greatest increases in classification rates at optimal cut scores, given different levels of bias. It was concluded that, consistent with expectations, taking account of bias indicator suppression on the MMPI-2-RF can improve discrimination of ES and NES. At higher levels of negative impression management, higher cut scores on substantive scales are needed to attain optimal discrimination, whereas at higher levels of positive impression management and FBS-r, lower cut scores are needed. Using these new cut scores resulted in modest improvements in accuracy in discrimination. These findings are consistent with prior research in showing the efficacy of bias indicators, and extend the findings to a psycho-medical context.
ContributorsWershba, Rebecca E (Author) / Lanyon, Richard I (Thesis advisor) / Barrera, Manuel (Committee member) / Karoly, Paul (Committee member) / Millsap, Roger E (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2013
Description
For this thesis a Monte Carlo simulation was conducted to investigate the robustness of three latent interaction modeling approaches (constrained product indicator, generalized appended product indicator (GAPI), and latent moderated structural equations (LMS)) under high degrees of nonnormality of the exogenous indicators, which have not been investigated in previous literature. Results showed that the constrained product indicator and LMS approaches yielded biased estimates of the interaction effect when the exogenous indicators were highly nonnormal. When the violation of nonnormality was not severe (symmetric with excess kurtosis < 1), the LMS approach with ML estimation yielded the most precise latent interaction effect estimates. The LMS approach with ML estimation also had the highest statistical power among the three approaches, given that the actual Type-I error rates of the Wald and likelihood ratio test of interaction effect were acceptable. In highly nonnormal conditions, only the GAPI approach with ML estimation yielded unbiased latent interaction effect estimates, with an acceptable actual Type-I error rate of both the Wald test and likelihood ratio test of interaction effect. No support for the use of the Satorra-Bentler or Yuan-Bentler ML corrections was found across all three methods.
ContributorsCham, Hei Ning (Author) / West, Stephen G. (Thesis advisor) / Aiken, Leona S. (Committee member) / Enders, Craig K. (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2010