Unreliable Continuous Treatment Indicators in Propensity Score Analysis

Abstract

Propensity score analyses (PSA) of continuous treatments often operationalize the treatment as a multi-indicator composite, and its composite reliability is unreported. Latent variables or factor scores accounting for this unreliability are seldom used as alternatives to composites. This study examines the effects of the unreliability of indicators of a latent treatment in PSA using the generalized propensity score (GPS). A Monte Carlo simulation study was conducted varying composite reliability, continuous treatment representation, variability of factor loadings, sample size, and number of treatment indicators to assess whether Average Treatment Effect (ATE) estimates differed in their relative bias, Root Mean Squared Error, and coverage rates. Results indicate that low composite reliability leads to underestimation of the ATE of latent continuous treatments, while the number of treatment indicators and variability of factor loadings show little effect on ATE estimates, after controlling for overall composite reliability. The results also show that, in correctly specified GPS models, the effects of low composite reliability can be somewhat ameliorated by using factor scores that were estimated including covariates. An illustrative example is provided using survey data to estimate the effect of teacher adoption of a workbook related to a virtual learning environment in the classroom.

Keywords:

• Propensity score analysis
• generalized propensity score
• factor scores
• reliability
• Monte Carlo simulation study
• continuous latent treatments

Article Information

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Each author signed a form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. No authors reported any financial or other conflicts of interest in relation to the work described.

Ethical Principles: The authors affirm having followed professional ethical guidelines in preparing this work. These guidelines include obtaining informed consent from human participants, maintaining ethical treatment and respect for the rights of human or animal participants, and ensuring the privacy of participants and their data, such as ensuring that individual participants cannot be identified in reported results or from publicly available original or archival data.

Funding: The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R305C160004 to the University of Florida.

Role of the Funders/Sponsors: None of the funders or sponsors of this research had any role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; or decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Acknowledgments: The ideas and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors alone, and endorsement by the authors’ institution or the respective funding agencies is not intended and should not be inferred.

Notes

1 The complete code for the Monte Carlo simulation is available in the Open Science Framework site https://osf.io/9dngt/.

2 Supplemental Tables are available in the Open Science Framework site https://osf.io/9dngt/.

3 The survey is available at https://osf.io/8gbwf/.