Bounds on direct and indirect effects under treatment/mediator endogeneity and outcome attrition

References

• Albert, J. M. (2008). Mediation analysis via potential outcomes models. Statistics in Medicine 27(8):1282–1304. doi:10.1002/sim.3016
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Albert, J. M., Nelson, S. (2011). Generalized causal mediation analysis. Biometrics 67(3):1028–1038. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0420.2010.01547.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Angrist, J., Bettinger, E., Kremer, M. (2006). Long-Term educational consequences of secondary school vouchers: Evidence from administrative records in Colombia. American Economic Review 96(3):847–862. doi:10.1257/aer.96.3.847
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Azmat, G., Petrongolo, B. (2014). Gender and the labor market: What have we learned from field and lab experiments? Labour Economics 30:32–40. doi:10.1016/j.labeco.2014.06.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balke, A., Pearl, J. (1997). Bounds on treatment effects from studies with imperfect compliance. Journal of the American Statistical Association 92(439):1171–1176. doi:10.1080/01621459.1997.10474074
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baron, R. M., Kenny, D. A. (1986). The Moderator-Mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51(6):1173–1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bertrand, M. (2011). New perspectives on gender, In: Ashenfelter, O., and Card, D., eds., Handbook of Labor Economics, Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier, pp. 1543–1590.
   Google Scholar
• Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. (2001). National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 Cohort, 1979-2000 (Rounds 1–19). Produced and distributed by the Center for Human Resource Research, The Ohio State University. Columbus, OH.
   Google Scholar
• Cai, Z., Kuroki, M., Pearl, J., Tian, J. (2008). Bounds on direct effects in the presence of confounded intermediate variables. Biometrics 64(3):695–701. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0420.2007.00949.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W. (1962). Programming with linear fractional functionals. Naval Research Logistics Quarterly 9(3–4):181–186. doi:10.1002/nav.3800090303
   Google Scholar
• Cochran, W. G. (1957). Analysis of covariance: Its nature and uses. Biometrics 13(3):261–281. doi:10.2307/2527916
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Das, M., Newey, W. K., Vella, F. (2003). Nonparametric estimation of sample selection models. Review of Economic Studies 70(1):33–58. doi:10.1111/1467-937X.00236
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demuynck, T. (2015). Bounding average treatment effects: a linear programming approach. Economics Letters 137:75–77. doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2015.09.042
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flores, C. A., Flores-Lagunes, A. (2009). Identification and estimation of causal mechanisms and net effects of a treatment under unconfoundedness. Iza Dp No. 4237.
   Google Scholar
• Flores, C. A., Flores-Lagunes, A. (2010). Nonparametric partial identification of causal net and mechanism average treatment effects. Mimeo, University of Florida.
   Google Scholar
• Freyberger, J., Horowitz, J. L. (2015). Identification and shape restrictions in nonparametric instrumental variables estimation. Journal of Econometrics 189(1):41–53. doi:10.1016/j.jeconom.2015.06.020
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gronau, R. (1974). Wage comparisons-a selectivity bias. Journal of Political Economy 82(6):1119–1143. doi:10.1086/260267
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heckman, J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica 47(1):153–161. doi:10.2307/1912352
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heckman, J. J. (1976). The common structure of statistical models of truncation, sample selection and limited dependent variables and a simple estimator for such models. Annals of Economic and Social Measurement 5:475–492.
   Google Scholar
• Heckman, J., Pinto, R., Savelyev, P. (2013). Understanding the mechanisms through which an influential early childhood program boosted adult outcomes. The American Economic review 103(6):2052–2086. doi:10.1257/aer.103.6.2052
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hong, G. (2010). Ratio of mediator probability weighting for estimating natural direct and indirect effects, in Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Biometrics Section, pp. 2401–2415. Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association.
   Google Scholar
• Hong, G., Qin, X., Yang, F. (2018). Weighting-based sensitivity analysis in causal mediation studies. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 43(1):32–56. doi:10.3102/1076998617749561
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Honoré, B., Tamer, E. (2006). Bounds on parameters in panel dynamic discrete choice models. Econometrica 74(3):611–629. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0262.2006.00676.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huber, M. (2014). Treatment evaluation in the presence of sample selection. Econometric Reviews 33(8):869–905. doi:10.1080/07474938.2013.806197
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huber, M. (2015). Causal pitfalls in the decomposition of wage gaps. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics 33(2):179–191. doi:10.1080/07350015.2014.937437
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huber, M., Lechner, M., Mellace, G. (2017). Why do tougher caseworkers increase employment? The role of program assignment as a causal mechanism. Review of Economics and Statistics 99(1):180–183. doi:10.1162/REST_a_00632
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huber, M., Solovyeva, A. (2020a). Direct and indirect effects under sample selection and outcome attrition. Econometrics 8(4):44. doi:10.3390/econometrics8040044
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huber, M., Solovyeva, A. (2020b). On the sensitivity of wage gap decompositions. Journal of Labor Research 41(1–2):1–33. doi:10.1007/s12122-020-09302-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Imai, K., Keele, L., Yamamoto, T. (2010). Identification, inference and sensitivity analysis for causal mediation effects. Statistical Science 25(1):51–71. doi:10.1214/10-STS321
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Imai, K., Yamamoto, T. (2013). Identification and sensitivity analysis for multiple causal mechanisms: Revisiting evidence from framing experiments. Political Analysis 21(2):141–171. doi:10.1093/pan/mps040
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Judd, C. M., Kenny, D. A. (1981). Process analysis: Estimating mediation in treatment evaluations. Evaluation Review 5(5):602–619. doi:10.1177/0193841X8100500502
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaufman, S., Kaufman, J. S., MacLehose, R. F., Greenland, S., Poole, C. (2005). Improved estimation of controlled direct effects in the presence of unmeasured confounding of intermediate variables. Statistics in Medicine 24(11):1683–1702. doi:10.1002/sim.2057
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keele, L., Tingley, D., Yamamoto, T. (2015). Identifying mechanisms behind policy interventions via causal mediation analysis. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 34(4):937–963. doi:10.1002/pam.21853
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lafférs, L. (2019). Bounding average treatment effects using linear programming. Empirical Economics 57(3):727–767. doi:10.1007/s00181-018-1474-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lafférs, L., Nedela, R. (2017). Sensitivity of the bounds on the ATE in the presence of sample selection. Economics Letters 158:84–87. doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2017.06.039
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Little, R., Rubin, D. (1987). Statistical Analysis with Missing Data. Wiley, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Manski, C. F. (2007). Partial identification of counterfactual choice probabilities. International Economic Review 48(4):1393–1410. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2354.2007.00467.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Molinari, F. (2008). Partial identification of probability distributions with misclassified data. Journal of Econometrics 144(1):81–117. doi:10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.12.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearl, J. (2001). Direct and indirect effects, In: Proceedings of the Seventeenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 411–420, San Francisco. Morgan Kaufman.
   Google Scholar
• Petersen, M. L., Sinisi, S. E., van der Laan, M. J. (2006). Estimation of direct causal effects. Epidemiology 17:276–284.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Politis, D. N., Romano, J. P., Wolf, M. (1999). Subsampling. Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: Springer Science & Business Media.
   Google Scholar
• Robins, J. M. (2003). Semantics of causal DAG models and the identification of direct and indirect effects, In Green, P., Hjort, N., and Richardson, S. In Highly Structured Stochastic Systems, pp. 70–81, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Robins, J. M., Greenland, S. (1992). Identifiability and exchangeability for direct and indirect effects. Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) 3(2):143–155.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Romano, J. P., Shaikh, A. M. (2010). Inference for the identified set in partially identified econometric models. Econometrica 78(1):169–211.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rubin, D. B. (1974). Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology 66(5):688–701. doi:10.1037/h0037350
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rubin, D. B. (1976). Inference and missing data. Biometrika 63(3):581–592. doi:10.1093/biomet/63.3.581
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sjölander, A. (2009). Bounds on natural direct effects in the presence of confounded intermediate variables. Statistics in Medicine 28(4):558–571. doi:10.1002/sim.3493
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sloczynski, T. (2013): Population average gender effects, IZA Discussion Paper No. 7315.
   Google Scholar
• Tchetgen, E. J., Shpitser, I. (2012). Semiparametric theory for causal mediation analysis: Efficiency bounds, multiple robustness, and sensitivity analysis. Annals of Statistics 40(3):1816–1845. doi:10.1214/12-AOS990
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ten Have, T. R., Joffe, M. M., Lynch, K. G., Brown, G. K., Maisto, S. A., Beck, A. T. (2007). Causal mediation analyses with rank preserving models. Biometrics 63(3):926–934. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0420.2007.00766.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• VanderWeele, T. J. (2009). Marginal structural models for the estimation of direct and indirect effects. Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) 20(1):18–26. doi:10.1097/EDE.0b013e31818f69ce
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• VanderWeele, T. J. (2010). Bias formulas for sensitivity analysis for direct and indirect effects. Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) 21(4):540–551. doi:10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181df191c
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• VanderWeele, T. J., Chiba, Y. (2014). Sensitivity analysis for direct and indirect effects in the presence of exposure-induced mediator-outcome confounders. Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Public Health 11:1–16.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vansteelandt, S., Bekaert, M., Lange, T. (2012). Imputation strategies for the estimation of natural direct and indirect effects. Epidemiologic Methods 1(1):129–158. doi:10.1515/2161-962X.1014
   Google Scholar
• Vansteelandt, S., VanderWeele, T. J. (2012). Natural direct and indirect effects on the exposed: effect decomposition under weaker assumptions. Biometrics 68(4):1019–1027. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0420.2012.01777.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar