A Note on "Sequential Neighborhood Effects" by Hicks et al. (2018)

被引:0
|
作者
Handcock, Mark S. [1 ,2 ]
Hicks, Andrew L. [3 ]
Sastry, Narayan [4 ,5 ]
Pebley, Anne R. [1 ,6 ]
机构
[1] Univ Calif Los Angeles, Calif Ctr Populat Res, Los Angeles, CA 90095 USA
[2] Univ Calif Los Angeles, Dept Stat, Los Angeles, CA 90095 USA
[3] Harvard Med Sch, Dept Hlth Care Policy, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[4] Univ Michigan, Populat Studies Ctr, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA
[5] Univ Michigan, Survey Res Ctr, Inst Social Res, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA
[6] Univ Calif Los Angeles, Fielding Sch Publ Hlth, Los Angeles, CA USA
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
Propensity function models; Child development; Neighborhood effects; LONG-TERM EXPOSURE; CONCENTRATED DISADVANTAGE; CAUSAL INFERENCE; ASSOCIATION;
D O I
10.1215/00703370-9000711
中图分类号
C921 [人口统计学];
学科分类号
摘要
We revisit a novel causal model published in Demography by Hicks et al. (2018), designed to assess whether exposure to neighborhood disavantage over time affects children's reading and math skills. Here, we provide corrected and new results. Reconsideration of the model in the original article raised concerns about bias due to expoure iduced confounding (i.e., past exposures directly affecting future exposures) and true state dependence (i.e., past exposures affecting confounders of future exposures). Through simulation, we show that our originally proposed propensity function approach displays modest bias due to exposureinduced confounding but no bias from true state dependence. We suggest a correction based on residualized values and show that this new approach corrects for the observed bias. We contrast this revised method with other causal modeling approaches using simulation. Finally, we reproduce the substantive models from Hicks et al. (2018) using the new residuals-based adjustment procedure. With the correction, our findings are essentially identical to those reported originally. We end with some conclusions regarding approaches to causal modeling.
引用
收藏
页码:773 / 783
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Reply to the letter to the editor by Swarthout et al. (2018): Comments for Mertens et al. (2018), Glyphosate, a chelating agent—relevant for ecological risk assessment?
    Martha Mertens
    Sebastian Höss
    Günter Neumann
    Joshua Afzal
    Wolfram Reichenbecher
    Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2018, 25 : 27664 - 27666
  • [42] Comments to Belcher et al. 2018's critique of Hansson and Polk 2018
    Hansson, Stina
    Polk, Merritt
    RESEARCH EVALUATION, 2019, 28 (02) : 202 - 205
  • [43] Reply by Gattinoni et al. to Hedenstierna et al., to Maley et al., to Fowler et al., to Bhatia and Mohammed, to Bos, to Koumbourlis and Motoyama, and to Haouzi et al
    Gattinoni, Luciano
    Coppola, Silvia
    Cressoni, Massimo
    Busana, Mattia
    Rossi, Sandra
    Chiumello, Davide
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF RESPIRATORY AND CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, 2020, 202 (04) : 628 - 630
  • [44] Commentary on Hicks et al. (2012): Alcohol cues and narrowed perceptions - speculating about implications
    Jernigan, David
    ADDICTION, 2012, 107 (06) : 1081 - 1081
  • [45] Commentary on Sertkaya et al. and Larson et al.
    Eisenstein, Eric L.
    CLINICAL TRIALS, 2016, 13 (02) : 137 - 139
  • [46] Response to Rowland et al. and Achour et al.
    Pridgeon, Chris S.
    Johansson, Inger
    Ingelman-Sundberg, Magnus
    CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS, 2022, 112 (06) : 1155 - 1155
  • [47] Reply to Zhang et al. and Tang et al.
    Bodnar, Lisa M.
    Johansson, Kari
    Hutcheon, Jennifer A.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION, 2024, 120 (04): : 993 - 993
  • [49] In Response to Morgan et al. and Li et al.
    Goldberg, M.
    McGale, P.
    Whelan, T. J.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2023, 115 (04): : 1012 - 1013
  • [50] Response to Pederson et al. and Chlebowski et al.
    Cold, Soren
    Cold, Frederik
    Jensen, Maj-Britt
    Cronin-Fenton, Deirdre
    Christiansen, Peer
    Ejlertsen, Bent
    JNCI-JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 2023, 115 (02): : 229 - 230