Placebo Tests and Matching Estimations on the Effects of Power Structure

Qi Zhang,Mingxing Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108657501.011

2019-01-01

Abstract:A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The Effects of Power,Social Motive,and Accountability on the Negotiation Cognition,Behavior,and Outcomes

WEI Qing-wang,ZHENG Quan-quan,YU Guo-liang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1006-6020.2010.01.004

2010-01-01

Abstract:A simulated negotiation experiment was designed to explore the different effects of social motive between high power and low power negotiators under either holding accountability or not holding accountability condition by using the negotiation task of job interview.One hundred and fifty-six undergraduate students(78 dyads) took part in a simulated one-to-one negotiation.The players in the same negotiation didn' t know each other and had the same sex.The results indicated:(1) Dyads including one prosocial recruiter held less fixed-pie perceptions than dyads including one proself recruiter for dyad-level outcomes.(2) Dyads consisting of two pro-social or two pro-self negotiators achieved higher joint outcomes and engaged in more problem solving while holding accountability rather than not.Dyads consisting of one pro-social and one pro-self negotiators achieved lower joint outcomes and engaged in more problem solving while holding accountability rather than not.
Application of Flexible Matching Strategy to Detect Gene-Environment Interactions for Increasing the Study Power

Xia Liang,Yong-jing Zhang,Bing Liu,Ming-juan Jin,Kun Chen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0254-6450.2010.01.024

2010-01-01

Abstract:INTRODUCTION:Flexible matching has recently been proposed as a method of improving interactions efficiency. In this study, the concept of flexible matching has been introduced, and the applicability of this strategy has also been described based on the power calculation of interaction between HER-2 polymorphism and smoking with breast cancer. A large-sample approximation method is used to estimate the power and efficiency of gene-environment interactions. In the basic scenario, power of interaction between HER-2 polymorphism and smoking of unmatched case-control study appears to be 30% while in the frequency matching case-control study it is 56%. However, when increasing the smoking prevalence in controls, greater power can be obtained (power = 74%).CONCLUSIONS:Flexible matching strategies can increase the power and efficiency of case-control studies to detect and estimate the gene-environment interactions when compared with traditional frequency matching and it is especially useful under those scenarios when low environmental exposure of population, adverse gene-environment interactions or less paired controls are seen. Optimal matching design should be made available by weighing the benefits and loss due to flexible matching.
Structured Procedures Promote Placebo Effects

Zhengyu Shen,Qian Xu,Liyin Jin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2020.104029

IF: 3.532

2020-01-01

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

Abstract:Placebo interventions have various beneficial effects on individuals' physical, mental and social well-being. We tested whether the structured procedures of placebo treatment could influence the magnitude of the placebo effects. Four studies show that a structured placebo treatment procedure can significantly enhance placebo outcomes in performance-based tasks. We attribute the enhanced placebo effects to the increased belief that a reliable link exists between action and outcomes and therefore the increased expectation regarding the efficacy of treatment, which is strengthened by the rigid structures of the placebo treatment procedure. These findings extend our understanding of the impacts of a structured treatment procedure on the magnitude of the placebo effects and shed important light on how to improve the effectiveness of placebo interventions in practice.
Placebo Tests for Causal Inference

Andrew C. Eggers,Guadalupe Tuñón,Allan Dafoe

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12818

IF: 4.503

2023-08-19

American Journal of Political Science

Abstract:Placebo tests are increasingly common in applied social science research, but the methodological literature has not previously offered a comprehensive account of what we learn from them. We define placebo tests as tools for assessing the plausibility of the assumptions underlying a research design relative to some departure from those assumptions. We offer a typology of tests defined by the aspect of the research design that is altered to produce it (outcome, treatment, or population) and the type of assumption that is tested (bias assumptions or distributional assumptions). Our formal framework clarifies the extra assumptions necessary for informative placebo tests; these assumptions can be strong, and in some cases similar assumptions would justify a different procedure allowing the researcher to relax the research design's assumptions rather than test them. Properly designed and interpreted, placebo tests can be an important device for assessing the credibility of empirical research designs.

political science
Propensity Score Method: a Non-Parametric Technique to Reduce Model Dependence

Zhongheng Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/atm.2016.08.57

IF: 3.616

2017-01-01

Annals of Translational Medicine

Abstract:Propensity score analysis (PSA) is a powerful technique that it balances pretreatment covariates, making the causal effect inference from observational data as reliable as possible. The use of PSA in medical literature has increased exponentially in recent years, and the trend continue to rise. The article introduces rationales behind PSA, followed by illustrating how to perform PSA in R with MatchIt package. There are a variety of methods available for PS matching such as nearest neighbors, full matching, exact matching and genetic matching. The task can be easily done by simply assigning a string value to the method argument in the matchit() function. The generic summary() and plot() functions can be applied to an object of class matchit to check covariate balance after matching. Furthermore, there is a useful package PSAgraphics that contains several graphical functions to check covariate balance between treatment groups across strata. If covariate balance is not achieved, one can modify model specifications or use other techniques such as random forest and recursive partitioning to better represent the underlying structure between pretreatment covariates and treatment assignment. The process can be repeated until the desirable covariate balance is achieved.
Differential power of placebo across major psychiatric disorders: a preliminary meta-analysis and machine learning study

Bo Cao,Yang S. Liu,Alessandro Selvitella,Diego Librenza-Garcia,Ives Cavalcante Passos,Jeffrey Sawalha,Pedro Ballester,Jianshan Chen,Shimiao Dong,Fei Wang,Flavio Kapczinski,Serdar M. Dursun,Xin-Min Li,Russell Greiner,Andrew Greenshaw

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-99534-z

IF: 4.6

2021-10-29

Scientific Reports

Abstract:Abstract The placebo effect across psychiatric disorders is still not well understood. In the present study, we conducted meta-analyses including meta-regression, and machine learning analyses to investigate whether the power of placebo effect depends on the types of psychiatric disorders. We included 108 clinical trials (32,035 participants) investigating pharmacological intervention effects on major depressive disorder (MDD), bipolar disorder (BD) and schizophrenia (SCZ). We developed measures based on clinical rating scales and Clinical Global Impression scores to compare placebo effects across these disorders. We performed meta-analysis including meta-regression using sample-size weighted bootstrapping techniques, and machine learning analysis to identify the disorder type included in a trial based on the placebo response. Consistently through multiple measures and analyses, we found differential placebo effects across the three disorders, and found lower placebo effect in SCZ compared to mood disorders. The differential placebo effects could also distinguish the condition involved in each trial between SCZ and mood disorders with machine learning. Our study indicates differential placebo effect across MDD, BD, and SCZ, which is important for future neurobiological studies of placebo effects across psychiatric disorders and may lead to potential therapeutic applications of placebo on disorders more responsive to placebo compared to other conditions.

multidisciplinary sciences
Causal progress with imperfect placebo treatments and outcomes

Adam Rohde,Chad Hazlett

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2310.15266

2023-10-23

Methodology

Abstract:In the quest to make defensible causal claims from observational data, it is sometimes possible to leverage information from "placebo treatments" and "placebo outcomes" (or "negative outcome controls"). Existing approaches employing such information focus largely on point identification and assume (i) "perfect placebos", meaning placebo treatments have precisely zero effect on the outcome and the real treatment has precisely zero effect on a placebo outcome; and (ii) "equiconfounding", meaning that the treatment-outcome relationship where one is a placebo suffers the same amount of confounding as does the real treatment-outcome relationship, on some scale. We instead consider an omitted variable bias framework, in which users can postulate non-zero effects of placebo treatment on real outcomes or of real treatments on placebo outcomes, and the relative strengths of confounding suffered by a placebo treatment/outcome compared to the true treatment-outcome relationship. Once postulated, these assumptions identify or bound the linear estimates of treatment effects. While applicable in many settings, one ubiquitous use-case for this approach is to employ pre-treatment outcomes as (perfect) placebo outcomes. In this setting, the parallel trends assumption of difference-in-difference is in fact a strict equiconfounding assumption on a particular scale, which can be relaxed in our framework. Finally, we demonstrate the use of our framework with two applications, employing an R package that implements these approaches.
Balance Diagnostics after Propensity Score Matching.

Zhongheng Zhang,Hwa Jung Kim,G. Lonjon,Yibing Zhu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/atm.2018.12.10

IF: 3.616

2019-01-01

Annals of Translational Medicine

Abstract:Propensity score matching (PSM) is a popular method in clinical researches to create a balanced covariate distribution between treated and untreated groups. However, the balance diagnostics are often not appropriately conducted and reported in the literature and therefore the validity of the findings from the PSM analysis is not warranted. The special article aims to outline the methods used for assessing balance in covariates after PSM. Standardized mean difference (SMD) is the most commonly used statistic to examine the balance of covariate distribution between treatment groups. Because SMD is independent of the unit of measurement, it allows comparison between variables with different unit of measurement. SMD can be reported with plot. Variance is the second central moment and should also be compared in the matched sample. Finally, a correct specification of the propensity score model (e.g., linearity and additivity) should be re-assessed if there is evidence of imbalance between treated and untreated. R code for the implementation of balance diagnostics is provided and explained.
Matching Bounds: How Choice of Matching Algorithm Impacts Treatment Effects Estimates and What to Do about It

Marco Morucci,Cynthia Rudin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2009.02776

2023-03-22

Abstract:Many major works in social science employ matching to make causal conclusions, but different matches on the same data may produce different treatment effect estimates, even when they achieve similar balance or minimize the same loss function. We discuss reasons and consequences of this problem. We present evidence of this problem by replicating ten papers that use matching and we find that different popular matching algorithms produce inconsistent results. We introduce Matching Bounds: a finite-sample, nonstochastic method that allows analysts to know whether a matched sample that produces different results with the same levels of balance and overall match quality could be obtained from their data. We apply Matching Bounds to a replication of two studies and show that in one case results are robust to this issue and in another they are not.

Applications,Methodology
Inference for Synthetic Controls via Refined Placebo Tests

Lihua Lei,Timothy Sudijono

2024-04-13

Abstract:The synthetic control method is often applied to problems with one treated unit and a small number of control units. A common inferential task in this setting is to test null hypotheses regarding the average treatment effect on the treated. Inference procedures that are justified asymptotically are often unsatisfactory due to (1) small sample sizes that render large-sample approximation fragile and (2) simplification of the estimation procedure that is implemented in practice. An alternative is permutation inference, which is related to a common diagnostic called the placebo test. It has provable Type-I error guarantees in finite samples without simplification of the method, when the treatment is uniformly assigned. Despite this robustness, the placebo test suffers from low resolution since the null distribution is constructed from only $N$ reference estimates, where $N$ is the sample size. This creates a barrier for statistical inference at a common level like $\alpha = 0.05$, especially when $N$ is small. We propose a novel leave-two-out procedure that bypasses this issue, while still maintaining the same finite-sample Type-I error guarantee under uniform assignment for a wide range of $N$. Unlike the placebo test whose Type-I error always equals the theoretical upper bound, our procedure often achieves a lower unconditional Type-I error than theory suggests; this enables useful inference in the challenging regime when $\alpha < 1/N$. Empirically, our procedure achieves a higher power when the effect size is reasonably large and a comparable power otherwise. We generalize our procedure to non-uniform assignments and show how to conduct sensitivity analysis. From a methodological perspective, our procedure can be viewed as a new type of randomization inference different from permutation or rank-based inference, which is particularly effective in small samples.

Methodology,Econometrics,Statistics Theory
Power of Ordered Hypothesis Testing

Lihua Lei,William Fithian

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1606.01969

2016-06-06

Methodology

Abstract:Ordered testing procedures are multiple testing procedures that exploit a pre-specified ordering of the null hypotheses, from most to least promising. We analyze and compare the power of several recent proposals using the asymptotic framework of Li & Barber (2015). While accumulation tests including ForwardStop can be quite powerful when the ordering is very informative, they are asymptotically powerless when the ordering is weaker. By contrast, Selective SeqStep, proposed by Barber & Cand\`es (2015), is much less sensitive to the quality of the ordering. We compare the power of these procedures in different r\'egimes, concluding that Selective SeqStep dominates accumulation tests if either the ordering is weak or non-null hypotheses are sparse or weak. Motivated by our asymptotic analysis, we derive an improved version of Selective SeqStep which we call Adaptive SeqStep, analogous to Storey's improvement on the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure. We compare these methods using the GEOQuery data set analyzed by Li & Barber (2015) and find Adaptive SeqStep has favorable performance for both good and bad prior orderings.
Improving Randomization Tests under Interference Based on Power Analysis

Mizuho Yanagi,Tomonari Sei

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2203.10469

2022-03-20

Abstract:In causal inference, we can consider a situation in which treatment on one unit affects others, i.e., interference exists. In the presence of interference, we cannot perform a classical randomization test directly because a null hypothesis is not sharp. Instead, we need to perform the randomization test restricted to a subset of units and assignments that makes the null hypothesis sharp. A previous study constructed a useful testing method, a biclique test, by reducing the selection of the appropriate subsets to searching for bicliques in a bipartite graph. However, since the power depends on the features of selected subsets, there is still room to improve the power by refining the selection procedure. In this paper, we propose a method to improve the biclique test based on a power evaluation of the randomization test. We explicitly derived an expression for the power of the randomization test under several assumptions and found that a certain quantity calculated from a given assignment set characterizes the power. Based on this fact, we propose a method to improve the power of the biclique test by modifying the selection rule for subsets of units and assignments. Through a simulation with a spatial interference setting, we confirm that the proposed method has higher power than the existing method.

Methodology
The Essential Role of Pair Matching in Cluster-Randomized Experiments, with Application to the Mexican Universal Health Insurance Evaluation

Kosuke Imai,Gary King,Clayton Nall

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1214/08-STS274

2009-10-20

Abstract:A basic feature of many field experiments is that investigators are only able to randomize clusters of individuals--such as households, communities, firms, medical practices, schools or classrooms--even when the individual is the unit of interest. To recoup the resulting efficiency loss, some studies pair similar clusters and randomize treatment within pairs. However, many other studies avoid pairing, in part because of claims in the literature, echoed by clinical trials standards organizations, that this matched-pair, cluster-randomization design has serious problems. We argue that all such claims are unfounded. We also prove that the estimator recommended for this design in the literature is unbiased only in situations when matching is unnecessary; its standard error is also invalid. To overcome this problem without modeling assumptions, we develop a simple design-based estimator with much improved statistical properties. We also propose a model-based approach that includes some of the benefits of our design-based estimator as well as the estimator in the literature. Our methods also address individual-level noncompliance, which is common in applications but not allowed for in most existing methods. We show that from the perspective of bias, efficiency, power, robustness or research costs, and in large or small samples, pairing should be used in cluster-randomized experiments whenever feasible; failing to do so is equivalent to discarding a considerable fraction of one's data. We develop these techniques in the context of a randomized evaluation we are conducting of the Mexican Universal Health Insurance Program.

Methodology
Power and Sample Size Calculations for Rerandomization

Zach Branson,Xinran Li,Peng Ding

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2201.02486

2022-12-08

Abstract:Power analyses are an important aspect of experimental design, because they help determine how experiments are implemented in practice. It is common to specify a desired level of power and compute the sample size necessary to obtain that power. Such calculations are well-known for completely randomized experiments, but there can be many benefits to using other experimental designs. For example, it has recently been established that rerandomization, where subjects are randomized until covariate balance is obtained, increases the precision of causal effect estimators. This work establishes the power of rerandomized treatment-control experiments, thereby allowing for sample size calculators. We find the surprising result that, while power is often greater under rerandomization than complete randomization, the opposite can occur for very small treatment effects. The reason is that inference under rerandomization can be relatively more conservative, in the sense that it can have a lower type-I error at the same nominal significance level, and this additional conservativeness adversely affects power. This surprising result is due to treatment effect heterogeneity, a quantity often ignored in power analyses. We find that heterogeneity increases power for large effect sizes but decreases power for small effect sizes.

Methodology,Statistics Theory
Optimality of Matched-Pair Designs in Randomized Controlled Trials

Yuehao Bai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20201856

IF: 10.7

2022-12-01

American Economic Review

Abstract:In randomized controlled trials, treatment is often assigned by stratified randomization. I show that among all stratified randomization schemes that treat all units with probability one half, a certain matched-pair design achieves the maximum statistical precision for estimating the average treatment effect. In an important special case, the optimal design pairs units according to the baseline outcome. In a simulation study based on datasets from ten randomized controlled trials, this design lowers the standard error for the estimator of the average treatment effect by 10 percent on average, and by up to 34 percent, relative to the original designs. (JEL C13, C21)

economics
Testing Biased Randomization Assumptions and Quantifying Imperfect Matching and Residual Confounding in Matched Observational Studies

Kan Chen,Siyu Heng,Qi Long,Bo Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10618600.2022.2116447

2022-10-21

Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics

Abstract:One central goal of design of observational studies is to embed nonexperimental data into an approximate randomized controlled trial using statistical matching. Despite empirical researchers' best intention and effort to create high-quality matched samples, residual imbalance due to observed covariates not being well matched often persists. Although statistical tests have been developed to test the randomization assumption and its implications, few provide a means to quantify the level of residual confounding due to observed covariates not being well matched in matched samples. In this article, we develop two generic classes of exact statistical tests for a biased randomization assumption. One important by-product of our testing framework is a quantity called residual sensitivity value (RSV), which provides a means to quantify the level of residual confounding due to imperfect matching of observed covariates in a matched sample. We advocate taking into account RSV in the downstream primary analysis. The proposed methodology is illustrated by re-examining a famous observational study concerning the effect of right heart catheterization (RHC) in the initial care of critically ill patients. Code implementing the method can be found in the supplementary materials.

statistics & probability
Propensity Score Matching underestimates Real Treatment Effect, in a simulated theoretical multivariate model

Daniel García Iglesias

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1901.09883

2019-01-31

Abstract:Propensity Score Matching (PSM) is an useful method to reduce the impact ofTreatment - Selection Bias in the estimation of causal effects in observational studies. After matching, the PSM significantly reduces the sample under investigation, which may lead to other possible biases. In this sense, we want to analyse the behaviour of this PSM compared with other widely used method to deal with non-comparable groups, as is the Multivariate Regression Model (MRM). Monte Carlo Simulations are made to construct groups with different effects in order to compare the behaviour of PSM and MRM estimating this effects. Also the Treatment - Selection Bias reduction for the PSM is calculated. With the PSM a reduction in the Treatment - Selection Bias is achieved, with a reduction in the Relative Real Treatment Effect Estimation Error, but despite of this bias reduction and estimation error reduction, the MRM significantly reduces more this estimation error compared with the PSM. Also the PSM leads to a not insignificant reduction of the sample. This loss of information derived from the matching process may lead to another not known bias, and thus, to the inaccurate of the effect estimation compared with the MRM.

Methodology
Power considerations for generalized estimating equations analyses of four-level cluster randomized trials

Xueqi Wang,Elizabeth L. Turner,John S. Preisser,Fan Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bimj.202100081

2022-03-05

Abstract:In this article, we develop methods for sample size and power calculations in four-level intervention studies when intervention assignment is carried out at any level, with a particular focus on cluster randomized trials (CRTs). CRTs involving four levels are becoming popular in health care research, where the effects are measured, for example, from evaluations (level 1) within participants (level 2) in divisions (level 3) that are nested in clusters (level 4). In such multi-level CRTs, we consider three types of intraclass correlations between different evaluations to account for such clustering: that of the same participant, that of different participants from the same division, and that of different participants from different divisions in the same cluster. Assuming arbitrary link and variance functions, with the proposed correlation structure as the true correlation structure, closed-form sample size formulas for randomization carried out at any level (including individually randomized trials within a four-level clustered structure) are derived based on the generalized estimating equations approach using the model-based variance and using the sandwich variance with an independence working correlation matrix. We demonstrate that empirical power corresponds well with that predicted by the proposed method for as few as 8 clusters, when data are analyzed using the matrix-adjusted estimating equations for the correlation parameters with a bias-corrected sandwich variance estimator, under both balanced and unbalanced designs.

Methodology
Statistical power in parallel group point exposure studies with time-to-event outcomes: an empirical comparison of the performance of randomized controlled trials and the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) approach

Peter C. Austin,Tibor Schuster,Robert W. Platt

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-015-0081-3

2015-10-15

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Abstract:BackgroundEstimating statistical power is an important component of the design of both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. Methods for estimating statistical power in RCTs have been well described and can be implemented simply. In observational studies, statistical methods must be used to remove the effects of confounding that can occur due to non-random treatment assignment. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score is an attractive method for estimating the effects of treatment using observational data. However, sample size and power calculations have not been adequately described for these methods.MethodsWe used an extensive series of Monte Carlo simulations to compare the statistical power of an IPTW analysis of an observational study with time-to-event outcomes with that of an analysis of a similarly-structured RCT. We examined the impact of four factors on the statistical power function: number of observed events, prevalence of treatment, the marginal hazard ratio, and the strength of the treatment-selection process.ResultsWe found that, on average, an IPTW analysis had lower statistical power compared to an analysis of a similarly-structured RCT. The difference in statistical power increased as the magnitude of the treatment-selection model increased.ConclusionsThe statistical power of an IPTW analysis tended to be lower than the statistical power of a similarly-structured RCT.

health care sciences & services
Estimating Heterogeneous Treatment Effects in the Presence of Self-Selection : A Propensity Score Perspective *

Xiaoping Zhou,Yu Xie

2015-01-01

Abstract:An essential feature common to all empirical social research is variability across units of analysis. Individuals differ not only in background characteristics and outcomes of interest, but also in how they respond to a particular treatment, intervention, or stimulation. Moreover, individuals may self-select into treatment on the basis of their anticipated treatment effects. To study heterogeneous treatment effects in the presence of self-selection, Heckman and his colleagues have developed a structural approach that builds on the marginal treatment effect (MTE). In this paper, we propose a revision of the MTE-based approach through a redefinition of the MTE. Specifically, we redefine MTE as the expected treatment effect conditional on the propensity score (instead of the vector of observed covariates) as well as a latent variable representing unobserved resistance to treatment. The redefined MTE is superior to the original MTE in a number of aspects. First, while it is conditional on a unidimensional summary of covariates, it is sufficient to capture all of the treatment effect heterogeneity that is consequential for selection bias. Second, the new MTE is a bivariate function, thus much easier than the original MTE to be visualized. Third, as with the original MTE, the new MTE can also be used as a building block with which to estimate causal effects in the aggregate. However, the weights associated with the new MTE are simpler, more intuitive, and much easier to implement. Finally, the newly defined MTE allows us to directly assess treatment effect heterogeneity among individuals who are at the margin of treatment. As a result, it can be used to evaluate a wide range of policy changes with little analytical effort, and to design policy interventions that maximize the marginal benefits of treatment.

Placebo Tests and Matching Estimations on the Effects of Power Structure

The Effects of Power,Social Motive,and Accountability on the Negotiation Cognition,Behavior,and Outcomes

Application of Flexible Matching Strategy to Detect Gene-Environment Interactions for Increasing the Study Power

Structured Procedures Promote Placebo Effects

Placebo Tests for Causal Inference

Propensity Score Method: a Non-Parametric Technique to Reduce Model Dependence

Differential power of placebo across major psychiatric disorders: a preliminary meta-analysis and machine learning study

Causal progress with imperfect placebo treatments and outcomes

Balance Diagnostics after Propensity Score Matching.

Matching Bounds: How Choice of Matching Algorithm Impacts Treatment Effects Estimates and What to Do about It

Inference for Synthetic Controls via Refined Placebo Tests

Power of Ordered Hypothesis Testing

Improving Randomization Tests under Interference Based on Power Analysis

The Essential Role of Pair Matching in Cluster-Randomized Experiments, with Application to the Mexican Universal Health Insurance Evaluation

Power and Sample Size Calculations for Rerandomization

Optimality of Matched-Pair Designs in Randomized Controlled Trials

Testing Biased Randomization Assumptions and Quantifying Imperfect Matching and Residual Confounding in Matched Observational Studies

Propensity Score Matching underestimates Real Treatment Effect, in a simulated theoretical multivariate model

Power considerations for generalized estimating equations analyses of four-level cluster randomized trials

Statistical power in parallel group point exposure studies with time-to-event outcomes: an empirical comparison of the performance of randomized controlled trials and the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) approach

Estimating Heterogeneous Treatment Effects in the Presence of Self-Selection : A Propensity Score Perspective *