If you need an accessible version of this item please contact JSTOR User Support

Estimating Exposure Effects by Modelling the Expectation of Exposure Conditional on Confounders

James M. Robins, Steven D. Mark and Whitney K. Newey
Biometrics
Vol. 48, No. 2 (Jun., 1992), pp. 479-495
DOI: 10.2307/2532304
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2532304
Page Count: 17
  • Download PDF
  • Cite this Item

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

If you need an accessible version of this item please contact JSTOR User Support
Estimating Exposure Effects by Modelling the Expectation of Exposure Conditional on Confounders
Preview not available

Abstract

In order to estimate the causal effects of one or more exposures or treatments on an outcome of interest, one has to account for the effect of "confounding factors" which both covary with the exposures or treatments and are independent predictors of the outcome. In this paper we present regression methods which, in contrast to standard methods, adjust for the confounding effect of multiple continuous or discrete covariates by modelling the conditional expectation of the exposures or treatments given the confounders. In the special case of a univariate dichotomous exposure or treatment, this conditional expectation is identical to what Rosenbaum and Rubin have called the propensity score. They have also proposed methods to estimate causal effects by modelling the propensity score. Our methods generalize those of Rosenbaum and Rubin in several ways. First, our approach straightforwardly allows for multivariate exposures or treatments, each of which may be continuous, ordinal, or discrete. Second, even in the case of a single dichotomous exposure, our approach does not require subclassification or matching on the propensity score so that the potential for "residual confounding," i.e., bias, due to incomplete matching is avoided. Third, our approach allows a rather general formalization of the idea that it is better to use the "estimated propensity score" than the true propensity score even when the true score is known. The additional power of our approach derives from the fact that we assume the causal effects of the exposures or treatments can be described by the parametric component of a semiparametric regression model. To illustrate our methods, we reanalyze the effect of current cigarette smoking on the level of forced expiratory volume in one second in a cohort of 2,713 adult white males. We compare the results with those obtained using standard methods.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
479
    479
  • Thumbnail: Page 
480
    480
  • Thumbnail: Page 
481
    481
  • Thumbnail: Page 
482
    482
  • Thumbnail: Page 
483
    483
  • Thumbnail: Page 
484
    484
  • Thumbnail: Page 
485
    485
  • Thumbnail: Page 
486
    486
  • Thumbnail: Page 
487
    487
  • Thumbnail: Page 
488
    488
  • Thumbnail: Page 
489
    489
  • Thumbnail: Page 
490
    490
  • Thumbnail: Page 
491
    491
  • Thumbnail: Page 
492
    492
  • Thumbnail: Page 
493
    493
  • Thumbnail: Page 
494
    494
  • Thumbnail: Page 
495
    495