The use of propensity scores to control for pretreatment imbalances on observed variables in non-randomized or observational studies examining the causal effects of treatments or interventions has become widespread over the past decade. For settings with two conditions of interest such as a treatment and a control, inverse probability of treatment weighted (IPTW) estimation with propensity scores estimated via boosted models has been shown in simulation studies to yield causal effect estimates with desirable properties. There are tools (e.g., the twang package in R) and guidance for implementing this method with two treatments. However, there is not such guidance for analyses of three or more treatments. The goals of this paper are two-fold: (1) to provide step-by-step guidance for researchers who want to implement propensity score weighting for multiple treatments and (2) to propose the use of generalized boosted models (GBM) for estimation of the necessary propensity score weights. We define the causal quantities that may be of interest to studies of multiple treatments and derive weighted estimators of those quantities. We present a detailed plan for using GBM to estimate propensity scores and using those scores to estimate weights and causal effects. Tools for assessing balance and overlap of pretreatment variables among treatment groups in the context of multiple treatments are also provided. A case study examining the effects of three treatment programs for adolescent substance abuse demonstrates the methods.

Causal effect modeling with naturalistic rather than experimental data is challenging. In observational studies participants in different treatment conditions may also differ on pretreatment characteristics that influence outcomes. Propensity score methods can theoretically eliminate these confounds for all observed covariates, but accurate estimation of propensity scores is impeded by large numbers of covariates, uncertain functional forms for their associations with treatment selection, and other problems. This article demonstrates that boosting, a modern statistical technique, can overcome many of these obstacles. The authors illustrate this approach with a study of adolescent probationers in substance abuse treatment programs. Propensity score weights estimated using boosting eliminate most pretreatment group differences and substantially alter the apparent relative effects of adolescent substance abuse treatment.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research organization providing objective analysis and effective solutions that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors around the world. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. R ® is a registered trademark.

The use of complex value-added models that attempt to isolate the contributions of teachers or schools to student development is increasing. Several variations on these models are being applied in the research literature, and policy makers have expressed interest in using these models for evaluating teachers and schools. In this article, we present a general multivariate, longitudinal mixed-model that incorporates the complex grouping structures inherent to longitudinal student data linked to teachers. We summarize the principal existing modeling approaches, show how these approaches are special cases of the proposed model, and discuss possible extensions to model more complex data structures. We present simulation and analytical results that clarify the interplay between estimated teacher effects and repeated outcomes on students over time. We also explore the potential impact of model misspecifications, including missing student covariates and assumptions about the accumulation of teacher effects over time, on key inferences made from the models. We conclude that mixed models that account for student correlation over time are reasonably robust to such misspecifications when all the schools in the sample serve similar student populations. However, student characteristics are likely to confound estimated teacher effects when schools serve distinctly different populations.

No abstract