title: Using latent outcome trajectory classes in causal inference.
abstract: In longitudinal studies, outcome trajectories can provide important information about substantively and clinically meaningful underlying subpopulations who may also respond differently to treatments or interventions. Growth mixture analysis is an efficient way of identifying heterogeneous trajectory classes. However, given its exploratory nature, it is unclear how involvement of latent classes should be handled in the analysis when estimating causal treatment effects. In this paper, we propose a 2-step approach, where formulation of trajectory strata and identification of causal effects are separated. In Step 1, we stratify individuals in one of the assignment conditions (reference condition) into trajectory strata on the basis of growth mixture analysis. In Step 2, we estimate treatment effects for different trajectory strata, treating the stratum membership as partly known (known for individuals assigned to the reference condition and missing for the rest). The results can be interpreted as how subpopulations that differ in terms of outcome prognosis under one treatment condition would change their prognosis differently when exposed to another treatment condition. Causal effect estimation in Step 2 is consistent with that in the principal stratification approach (Frangakis and Rubin, 2002) in the sense that clarified identifying assumptions can be employed and therefore systematic sensitivity analyses are possible. Longitudinal development of attention deficit among children from the Johns Hopkins School Intervention Trial (Ialongo et al., 1999) will be presented as an example.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-5795.
authors.forename: Booil
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Jo
authors.forename: Chen-Pin
authors.initials: CP
authors.lastname: Wang
authors.forename: Nicholas S
authors.initials: NS
authors.lastname: Ialongo
references.citation: Biostatistics. 2002 Dec;3(4):459-75
references.pmid: 12933592
references.citation: Am J Community Psychol. 1999 Oct;27(5):599-641
references.pmid: 10676542
references.citation: Psychol Methods. 2001 Mar;6(1):18-34
references.pmid: 11285809
references.citation: Biometrics. 1982 Dec;38(4):963-74
references.pmid: 7168798
references.citation: Biometrics. 1999 Jun;55(2):463-9
references.pmid: 11318201
references.citation: Biostatistics. 2002 Jun;3(2):147-64
references.pmid: 12933609
references.citation: Biostatistics. 2004 Apr;5(2):207-22
references.pmid: 15054026
references.citation: Biostatistics. 2008 Apr;9(2):277-89
references.pmid: 17681993
references.citation: Psychol Methods. 2008 Mar;13(1):1-18
references.pmid: 18331150
references.citation: Biometrics. 2002 Mar;58(1):21-9
references.pmid: 11890317
references.citation: Stat Med. 2009 Nov 30;28(27):3363-85
references.pmid: 19731223
references.citation: J Educ Behav Stat. 2007 Jan 1;33(2):158-185
references.pmid: 20689663
references.citation: Am J Community Psychol. 1991 Aug;19(4):585-602
references.pmid: 1755437