Matching Items (4)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: Psychology--Statistical methods.
- Genre: Doctoral Dissertation
- Creators: Grimm, Kevin J.
- Creators: Aiken, Leona
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
Researchers who conduct longitudinal studies are inherently interested in studying individual and population changes over time (e.g., mathematics achievement, subjective well-being). To answer such research questions, models of change (e.g., growth models) make the assumption of longitudinal measurement invariance. In many applied situations, key constructs are measured by a collection of ordered-categorical indicators (e.g., Likert scale items). To evaluate longitudinal measurement invariance with ordered-categorical indicators, a set of hierarchical models can be sequentially tested and compared. If the statistical tests of measurement invariance fail to be supported for one of the models, it is useful to have a method with which to gauge the practical significance of the differences in measurement model parameters over time. Drawing on studies of latent growth models and second-order latent growth models with continuous indicators (e.g., Kim & Willson, 2014a; 2014b; Leite, 2007; Wirth, 2008), this study examined the performance of a potential sensitivity analysis to gauge the practical significance of violations of longitudinal measurement invariance for ordered-categorical indicators using second-order latent growth models. The change in the estimate of the second-order growth parameters following the addition of an incorrect level of measurement invariance constraints at the first-order level was used as an effect size for measurement non-invariance. This study investigated how sensitive the proposed sensitivity analysis was to different locations of non-invariance (i.e., non-invariance in the factor loadings, the thresholds, and the unique factor variances) given a sufficient sample size. This study also examined whether the sensitivity of the proposed sensitivity analysis depended on a number of other factors including the magnitude of non-invariance, the number of non-invariant indicators, the number of non-invariant occasions, and the number of response categories in the indicators.
ContributorsLiu, Yu, Ph.D (Author) / West, Stephen G. (Thesis advisor) / Tein, Jenn-Yun (Thesis advisor) / Green, Samuel (Committee member) / Grimm, Kevin J. (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2016
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 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.
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
Description
In investigating mediating processes, researchers usually use randomized experiments and linear regression or structural equation modeling to determine if the treatment affects the hypothesized mediator and if the mediator affects the targeted outcome. However, randomizing the treatment will not yield accurate causal path estimates unless certain assumptions are satisfied. Since randomization of the mediator may not be plausible for most studies (i.e., the mediator status is not randomly assigned, but self-selected by participants), both the direct and indirect effects may be biased by confounding variables. The purpose of this dissertation is (1) to investigate the extent to which traditional mediation methods are affected by confounding variables and (2) to assess the statistical performance of several modern methods to address confounding variable effects in mediation analysis. This dissertation first reviewed the theoretical foundations of causal inference in statistical mediation analysis, modern statistical analysis for causal inference, and then described different methods to estimate causal direct and indirect effects in the presence of two post-treatment confounders. A large simulation study was designed to evaluate the extent to which ordinary regression and modern causal inference methods are able to obtain correct estimates of the direct and indirect effects when confounding variables that are present in the population are not included in the analysis. Five methods were compared in terms of bias, relative bias, mean square error, statistical power, Type I error rates, and confidence interval coverage to test how robust the methods are to the violation of the no unmeasured confounders assumption and confounder effect sizes. The methods explored were linear regression with adjustment, inverse propensity weighting, inverse propensity weighting with truncated weights, sequential g-estimation, and a doubly robust sequential g-estimation. Results showed that in estimating the direct and indirect effects, in general, sequential g-estimation performed the best in terms of bias, Type I error rates, power, and coverage across different confounder effect, direct effect, and sample sizes when all confounders were included in the estimation. When one of the two confounders were omitted from the estimation process, in general, none of the methods had acceptable relative bias in the simulation study. Omitting one of the confounders from estimation corresponded to the common case in mediation studies where no measure of a confounder is available but a confounder may affect the analysis. Failing to measure potential post-treatment confounder variables in a mediation model leads to biased estimates regardless of the analysis method used and emphasizes the importance of sensitivity analysis for causal mediation analysis.
ContributorsKisbu Sakarya, Yasemin (Author) / Mackinnon, David Peter (Thesis advisor) / Aiken, Leona (Committee member) / West, Stephen (Committee member) / Millsap, Roger (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2013