Matching Items (3)
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
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
157542-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
Statistical inference from mediation analysis applies to populations, however, researchers and clinicians may be interested in making inference to individual clients or small, localized groups of people. Person-oriented approaches focus on the differences between people, or latent groups of people, to ask how individuals differ across variables, and can hel

Statistical inference from mediation analysis applies to populations, however, researchers and clinicians may be interested in making inference to individual clients or small, localized groups of people. Person-oriented approaches focus on the differences between people, or latent groups of people, to ask how individuals differ across variables, and can help researchers avoid ecological fallacies when making inferences about individuals. Traditional variable-oriented mediation assumes the population undergoes a homogenous reaction to the mediating process. However, mediation is also described as an intra-individual process where each person passes from a predictor, through a mediator, to an outcome (Collins, Graham, & Flaherty, 1998). Configural frequency mediation is a person-oriented analysis of contingency tables that has not been well-studied or implemented since its introduction in the literature (von Eye, Mair, & Mun, 2010; von Eye, Mun, & Mair, 2009). The purpose of this study is to describe CFM and investigate its statistical properties while comparing it to traditional and casual inference mediation methods. The results of this study show that joint significance mediation tests results in better Type I error rates but limit the person-oriented interpretations of CFM. Although the estimator for logistic regression and causal mediation are different, they both perform well in terms of Type I error and power, although the causal estimator had higher bias than expected, which is discussed in the limitations section.
ContributorsSmyth, Heather Lynn (Author) / Mackinnon, David P (Thesis advisor) / Grimm, Kevin J. (Committee member) / Edwards, Michael C (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2019