3.8 Proceedings Paper

Measuring the Heterogeneity of Treatment Effects with Multilevel Observational Data

期刊

QUANTITATIVE PSYCHOLOGY
卷 265, 期 -, 页码 265-277

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-01310-3_24

关键词

Causal inference; Multilevel propensity score matching; Finite mixture modeling; Latent class analysis; Selection bias; Balancing scores; Heterogeneous selection processes; Heterogeneous treatment effects; Hierarchical linear modeling

资金

  1. Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research and Graduate Education at the University of Wisconsin-Madison
  2. Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Multilevel latent class analysis and mixture propensity score models have been implemented to account for heterogeneous selection mechanisms and for proper causal inference with observational multilevel data (Kim & Steiner in Quantitative Psychology Research. Springer, Cham, pp. 293-306, 2015). The scenarios imply the existence of multiple selection classes, and if class membership is unknown, homogeneous classes can be usually identified via multilevel logistic latent class models. Although latent class random-effects logistic models are frequently used, linear models and fixed-effects models can be alternatives for identifying multiple selection classes and estimating class-specific treatment effects (Kim & Suk in Specifying Multilevel Mixture Models in Propensity Score Analysis. International Meeting of Psychometric Society, New York, 2018). Using the Korea TIMSS 2015 eighth-grade student data, this study examined the potentially heterogeneous treatment effects of private science lessons by inspecting multiple selection classes (e.g., different motivations to receive the lessons) using four types of selection models: random-effects logistic, random-effects linear, fixed-effects logistic, and fixed-effects linear models. Implications of identifying selection classes in casual inference with multilevel assessment data are discussed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据