Skip to main content
Log in

Treatment Effect Decomposition and Bootstrap Hypothesis Testing in Observational Studies

  • Published:
Annals of Data Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Causal inference with observational data has drawn attention across various fields. These observational studies typically use matching methods which find matched pairs with similar covariate values. However, matching methods may not directly achieve covariate balance, a measure of matching effectiveness. As an alternative, the Balance Optimization Subset Selection (BOSS) framework, which seeks optimal covariate balance directly, has been proposed. This paper extends BOSS by estimating and decomposing a treatment effect as a combination of heterogeneous treatment effects from a partitioned set. Our method differs from the traditional propensity score subclassification method in that we find a subset in each subclass using BOSS instead of using the stratum determined by the propensity score. Then, by conducting a bootstrap hypothesis test on each component, we check the statistical significance of these treatment effects. These methods are applied to a dataset from the National Supported Work Demonstration (NSW) program which was conducted in the 1970s. By examining the statistical significance, we show that the program was not significantly effective to a specific subgroup composed of those who were already employed. This differs from the combined estimate—the NSW program was effective when considering all the individuals. Lastly, we provide results that are obtained when these steps are repeated with sub-samples.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Nikolaev AG, Jacobson SH, Cho WKT, Sauppe JJ, Sewell EC (2013) Balance optimization subset selection (BOSS): an alternative approach for causal inference with observational data. Oper Res 61(2):398–412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Cochran WG (1968) The effectiveness of adjustment by subclassification in removing bias in observational studies. Biometrics 24:295–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB (1985) Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. Am Stat 39(1):33–38

    Google Scholar 

  4. Xie Y, Brand JE, Jann B (2012) Estimating heterogeneous treatment effects with observational data. Sociol Methodol 42(1):314–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Imai K, Ratkovic M (2013) Estimating treatment effect heterogeneity in randomized program evaluation. Ann Appl Stat 7(1):443–470

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Elwert F, Winship C (2010) Effect heterogeneity and bias in main-effects-only regression models. In: Dechter R, Geffner H, Halpern JY (eds) Heuristics, Probability and Causality: A Tribute to Judea Pearl. College Publications, London, pp 327–336

    Google Scholar 

  7. Grender J, Williams K, Walters P, Klukowska M, Reick H (2013) Plaque removal efficacy of oscillating-rotating power toothbrushes: review of six comparative clinical trials. Am J Dent 26(2):68–74

    Google Scholar 

  8. Sauppe JJ, Jacobson SH, Sewell EC (2014) Complexity and approximation results for the balance optimization subset selection model for causal inference in observational studies. INFORMS J Comput 26(3):547–566

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. LaLonde RJ (1986) Evaluating the econometric evaluations of training programs with experimental data. Am Econ Rev 76:604–620

    Google Scholar 

  10. Sauppe JJ, Jacobson SH (2017) The role of covariate balance in observational studies. Naval Res Logist (NRL) 64(4):323–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kwon HY, Sauppe JJ, Jacobson SH (2018) Bias in balance optimization subset selection: exploration through examples. J Oper Res Soc 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/01605682.2017.1421848

  12. MacKinnon JG (2009) Bootstrap hypothesis testing. In: Belsley DA, Kontoghiorghes E (eds) Handbook of computational econometrics, chapt 6. Wiley, West Sussex, pp 183–2113

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Heckman JJ, Joseph Hotz V (1989) Choosing among alternative nonexperimental methods for estimating the impact of social programs: the case of manpower training. J Am Stat Assoc 84(408):862–874

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Dehejia RH, Wahba S (1999) Causal effects in nonexperimental studies: reevaluating the evaluation of training programs. J Am Stat Assoc 94(448):1053–1062

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Dehejia RH, Wahba S (2002) Propensity score-matching methods for nonexperimental causal studies. Rev Econ Stat 84(1):151–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Imbens GW (2003) Sensitivity to exogeneity assumptions in program evaluation. Am Econ Rev 93:126–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Smith JA, Todd PE (2005) Does matching overcome LaLonde’s critique of nonexperimental estimators? J Econom 125(1):305–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Abadie A, Imbens GW (2011) Bias-corrected matching estimators for average treatment effects. J Bus Econ Stat 29(1):1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Colson KE, Rudolph KE, Zimmerman SC, Goin DE, Stuart EA, van der Laan M, Ahern J (2016) Optimizing matching and analysis combinations for estimating causal effects. Sci Rep 6:23222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Cho WKT, Sauppe JJ, Nikolaev AG, Jacobson SH, Sewell EC (2013) An optimization approach for making causal inferences. Stat Neerlandica 67(2):211–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hee Youn Kwon.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kwon, H.Y., Sauppe, J.J. & Jacobson, S.H. Treatment Effect Decomposition and Bootstrap Hypothesis Testing in Observational Studies. Ann. Data. Sci. 6, 491–511 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40745-018-0179-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40745-018-0179-7

Keywords

Mathematics Subject Classification

Navigation