Coffman Donna L
The Pennsylvania State University.
Struct Equ Modeling. 2011 Jan 1;18(3):357-369. doi: 10.1080/10705511.2011.582001.
Mediation is usually assessed by a regression-based or structural equation modeling (SEM) approach that we will refer to as the classical approach. This approach relies on the assumption that there are no confounders that influence both the mediator, M, and the outcome, Y. This assumption holds if individuals are randomly assigned to levels of M but generally random assignment is not possible. We propose the use of propensity scores to help remove the selection bias that may result when individuals are not randomly assigned to levels of M. The propensity score is the probability that an individual receives a particular level of M. Results from a simulation study are presented to demonstrate this approach, referred to as Classical + Propensity Model (C+PM), confirming that the population parameters are recovered and that selection bias is successfully dealt with. Comparisons are made to the classical approach that does not include propensity scores. Propensity scores were estimated by a logistic regression model. If all confounders are included in the propensity model, then the C+PM is unbiased. If some, but not all, of the confounders are included in the propensity model, then the C+PM estimates are biased although not as severely as the classical approach (i.e. no propensity model is included).
中介效应通常通过基于回归或结构方程模型(SEM)的方法进行评估,我们将其称为经典方法。这种方法依赖于这样一个假设,即不存在同时影响中介变量M和结果变量Y的混杂因素。如果个体被随机分配到M的不同水平,那么这个假设成立,但通常情况下随机分配是不可能的。我们建议使用倾向得分来帮助消除当个体没有被随机分配到M的不同水平时可能产生的选择偏差。倾向得分是个体接受特定水平M的概率。本文呈现了一项模拟研究的结果,以证明这种被称为经典+倾向模型(C+PM)的方法,证实了总体参数得以恢复,且选择偏差得到了成功处理。同时与不包括倾向得分的经典方法进行了比较。倾向得分通过逻辑回归模型进行估计。如果所有混杂因素都包含在倾向模型中,那么C+PM是无偏的。如果部分而非全部混杂因素包含在倾向模型中,那么C+PM估计值会有偏差,尽管不像经典方法(即不包含倾向模型)那样严重。