title: Estimating Causal Effects in Mediation Analysis using Propensity Scores.
abstract: 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).
authors.affiliation: The Pennsylvania State University.
authors.forename: Donna L
authors.initials: DL
authors.lastname: Coffman
references.citation: Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol. 2008;8(2):57-76
references.pmid: 19484136
references.citation: Biometrics. 2007 Sep;63(3):926-34
references.pmid: 17825022
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986 Dec;51(6):1173-82
references.pmid: 3806354
references.citation: Annu Rev Psychol. 2007;58:593-614
references.pmid: 16968208
references.citation: Eval Rev. 2005 Dec;29(6):530-58
references.pmid: 16244051
references.citation: Multivariate Behav Res. 1998 Apr 1;33(2):295-312
references.pmid: 26771887
references.citation: Psychol Methods. 2008 Dec;13(4):314-36
references.pmid: 19071997
references.citation: Psychol Methods. 2008 Dec;13(4):279-313
references.pmid: 19071996
references.citation: Psychol Methods. 2002 Mar;7(1):83-104
references.pmid: 11928892
references.citation: Psychol Methods. 2004 Dec;9(4):403-25
references.pmid: 15598095
references.citation: Drug Alcohol Depend. 2002 Nov;68 Suppl 1:S69-83
references.pmid: 12324176
references.citation: Psychol Methods. 2002 Dec;7(4):422-45
references.pmid: 12530702
references.citation: Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2006 Jun;15(2):95-103
references.pmid: 19722290
references.citation: Stat Sci. 2007;22(4):569-573
references.pmid: 18516239
references.citation: Annu Rev Public Health. 2000;21:121-45
references.pmid: 10884949
references.citation: Stat Med. 2009 Mar 30;28(7):1108-30
references.pmid: 19184975
references.citation: Biometrics. 2002 Mar;58(1):21-9
references.pmid: 11890317
references.citation: Epidemiology. 1992 Mar;3(2):143-55
references.pmid: 1576220
references.citation: J Abnorm Psychol. 2003 Nov;112(4):558-77
references.pmid: 14674869
references.citation: Stat Med. 2010 Feb 10;29(3):337-46
references.pmid: 19960510