Abstract
Causal inference with observational data is challenging, as the assignment to treatment is often not random and people may have different reasons to receive or to be assigned to the treatment. Moreover, the analyst may not have access to all of the important variables and may face omitted variable bias as well as selection bias in nonexperimental studies. It is known that fixed effects models are robust against unobserved cluster variables while random effects models provide biased estimates of model parameters in the presence of omitted variables. This study further investigates the properties of fixed effects models as an alternative to the common random effects models for identifying and classifying subpopulations or “latent classes” when selection or outcome processes are heterogeneous. A recent study by Suk and Kim (2018) found that linear probability models outperform standard logistic selection models in terms of the extraction of the correct number of latent classes, and the authors continue to search for optimal model specifications of mixture selection models across different conditions, such as strong and weak selection, various numbers of clusters and cluster sizes. It is found that fixed-effects models outperform random effects models in terms of classifying units and estimating treatment effects when cluster size is small.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Arpino, B., & Mealli, F. (2011). The specification of the propensity score in multilevel observational studies. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 55, 1770–1780.
Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2005). Microeconometrics: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clogg, C. C. (1995). Latent class models. In G. Arminger, C. C. Clogg, & M. E. Sobel (Eds.), Handbook of statistical modeling for the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 311–359). Boston, MA: Springer.
Gui, R., Meierer, M., & Algesheimer, R. (2017). REndo: Fitting linear models with endogenous regressors using latent instrumental variables. R package version 1.3. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=REndo.
Hausman, J. A. (1978). Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica, 46, 1251–1271.
Hausman, J. A., & Taylor, W. E. (1981). Panel data and unobservable individual effects. Econometrica, 49, 1377–1398.
Hong, G., & Hong, Y. (2009). Reading instruction time and homogeneous grouping in kindergarten: An application of marginal mean weighting through stratification. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31, 54–81.
Hong, G., & Raudenbush, S. W. (2006). Evaluating kindergarten retention policy: A case study of causal inference for multilevel observational data. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 101, 901–910.
Kim, J. S., & Frees, E. W. (2007). Multilevel modeling with correlated effects. Psychometrika, 72, 505–533.
Kim, Y., Lubanski, S. A., & Steiner, P. M. (2018). Matching strategies for causal inference with observational data in education. In C. Lochmiller (Ed.), Complementary research methods for educational leadership and policy studies (pp. 173–191). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kim, J. S., & Steiner, P. M. (2015). Multilevel propensity score methods for estimating causal effects: A latent class modeling strategy. In L. van der Ark, D. Bolt, W. C. Wang, J. Douglas, & S. M. Chow (Eds.), Quantitative psychology research (pp. 293–306). Cham: Springer.
Kim, J.-S., Steiner, P. M. & Lim, W.-C. (2016). Mixture modeling strategies for causal inference with multilevel data. In J. R. Harring, L. M. Stapleton, & S. Natasha Beretvas (Eds.), Advances in multilevel modeling for educational research: Addressing practical issues found in real-world applications (pp. 335–359). Charlotte, NC: IAP—Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Leite, W. L., Jimenez, F., Kaya, Y., Stapleton, L. M., MacInnes, J. W., & Sandbach, R. (2015). An evaluation of weighting methods based on propensity scores to reduce selection bias in multilevel observational studies. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 50, 265–284.
McLachlan, G., & Peel, D. (2000). Finite mixture models. New York: Wiley.
Muthén, L. K., Muthén, B. O. (1998–2017). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
Nerlove, M. (2005). Essays in panel data econometrics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
R Core Team (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/.
Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70, 41–55.
Rubin, D. (1974). Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 688–701.
Steiner, P. M., & Cook, D. (2013). Matching and propensity scores. In T. Little (Ed.), The oxford handbook of quantitative methods (pp. 236–258). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Suk, Y., Kim, J.-S. (2018, April). Linear probability models as alternatives to logistic regression models for multilevel propensity score analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Educational Research Association, New York City, NY.
Thoemmes, F. J., & West, S. G. (2011). The use of propensity scores for nonrandomized designs with clustered data. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46, 514–543.
Tueller, S. J., Drotar, S., & Lubke, G. H. (2011). Addressing the problem of switched class labels in latent variable mixture model simulation studies. Structural Equation Modeling, 18, 110–131.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Kim, JS., Suk, Y. (2019). Specifying Multilevel Mixture Selection Models in Propensity Score Analysis. In: Wiberg, M., Culpepper, S., Janssen, R., González, J., Molenaar, D. (eds) Quantitative Psychology. IMPS IMPS 2017 2018. Springer Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics, vol 265. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01310-3_25
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01310-3_25
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-01309-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-01310-3
eBook Packages: Mathematics and StatisticsMathematics and Statistics (R0)