Propensity Score Analysis of Complex Survey Data with Structural Equation Modeling: A Tutorial with Mplus

References

• Abadie, A., & Imbens, G. W. (2002). Simple and bias-corrected matching estimators for average treatment effects. Technical Working Paper T0283, NBER.
   Google Scholar
• Alarcon, G. M. (2011). A meta-analysis of burnout with job demands, resources, and attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79, 549–562. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2011.03.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asparouhov, T. (2006). General multi-level modeling with sampling weights. Communications in Statistics: Theory and Methods, 35(3), 439–460. doi:10.1080/03610920500476598
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. O. (2006). Robust chi square difference testing with mean and variance adjusted test statistics. Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from http://www.statmodel.com/examples/webnote.shtml#web10
   Google Scholar
• Austin, P. C. (2008). A critical appraisal of propensity-score matching in the medical literature between 1996 and 2003. Statistics in Medicine, 27(12), 2037–2049. doi:10.1002/sim.3150
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Austin, P. C. (2009). Some methods of propensity-score matching had superior performance to others: Results of an empirical investigation and Monte Carlo simulations. Biometrical Journal, 51(1), 171–184. doi:10.1002/bimj.200810488
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Austin, P. C. (2011). An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46(3), 399–424. doi:10.1080/00273171.2011.568786
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Austin, P. C. (2014). A comparison of 12 algorithms for matching on the propensity score. Statistics in Medicine, 33(6), 1057–1069. doi:10.1002/sim.6004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aydin, B., Leite, W. L., & Algina, J. (2015). The effects of including observed means or latent means as covariates in multilevel models for cluster randomized trials. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 76(5), 803–823. doi:10.1177/0013164415618705
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bang, H., & Robins, J. M. (2005). Doubly robust estimation in missing data and causal inference models. Biometrics, 61(4), 962–973. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0420.2005.00377.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beauducel, A., & Herzberg, P. Y. (2006). On the performance of maximum likelihood versus means and variance adjusted weighted least squares estimation in CFA. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 13(2), 186–203. doi:10.1207/s15328007sem1302_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bettini, E., Jones, N. D., Brownell, M. T., Conroy, M., & Leite, W. L. (2018). Relationships between novices’ social resources and workload manageability. Journal of Special Education, 52, 113–126.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bettini, E., Jones, N. D., Brownell, M. T., Conroy, M., Park, Y., Leite, W. L., … Benedict, A. E. (2017). Workload manageability among novice special and general educators: Relationships with emotional exhaustion and career intentions. Remedial and Special Education, 38, 246–256. doi:10.1177/0741932517708327
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Billingsley, B. S., Griffin, C. C., Smith, S. J., Kamman, M., & Israel, M. (2009). A review of teacher induction in special education: Research, practice, and technology solutions. Retrieved from http://www.ncipp.org
   Google Scholar
• Bishop, C. D., Leite, W. L., & Snyder, P. (2018). Using propensity score weighting to reduce selection bias in large-scale data sets. Journal of Early Intervention. Advanced online publication. doi:10.1177/1053815118793430
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borman, G. D., & Dowling, N. M. (2008). Teacher attrition and retention: A meta-analytic and narrative review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 78, 367–409. doi:10.3102/0034654308321455
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brookhart, M. A., Schneeweiss, S., Rothman, K. J., Glynn, R. J., Avorn, J., & Sturmer, T. (2006). Variable selection for propensity score models. American Journal of Epidemiology, 163(12), 1149–1156. doi:10.1093/aje/kwj149
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carnegie, N. B., Harada, M., & Hill, J. L. (2016). Assessing sensitivity to unmeasured confounding using a simulated potential confounder. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 1–26. doi:10.1080/19345747.2015.1078862
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cepeda, M. S., Boston, R., Farrar, J. T., & Strom, B. L. (2003). Optimal matching with a variable number of controls vs. a fixed number of controls for a cohort study: Trade-offs. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 56, 230–237.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cochran, W. (1968). The effectiveness of adjustment by subclassification in removing bias in observational studies. Biometrics, 24, 295–313. doi:10.2307/2528036
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collier, Z. K., & Leite, W. L. (2017, April). Teaching neural networks to estimate propensity scores. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association Conference. San Antonio, TX.
   Google Scholar
• Conley, S., & You, S. (2017). Key influences on special education teachers’ intentions to leave: The effect of administrative support and teacher team efficacy in a mediational model. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 45, 521–540. doi:10.1177/1741143215608859
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cornfield, J., Haenszel, W., Hammond, E., Lilienfeld, A., Shimkin, M., & Wynder, E. (1959). Smoking and lung cancer: Recent evidence and a discussion of some questions. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 22, 173–203.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cuong, N. V. (2013). Which covariates should be controlled in propensity score matching? Evidence from a simulation study. Statistica Neerlandica, 67(2), 169–180. doi:10.1111/stan.12000
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diamond, A., & Sekhon, J. S. (2013). Genetic matching for estimating causal effects: A general multivariate matching method for achieving balance in observational studies. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 95, 932–945. doi:10.1162/REST_a_00318
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dorie, V., Harada, M., Carnegie, N. B., & Hill, J. (2016). A flexible, interpretable framework for assessing sensitivity to unmeasured confounding. Statistics in Medicine, 35(20), 3453–3470. doi:10.1002/sim.6973
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dugoff, E. H., Schuler, M., & Stuart, E. A. (2014). Generalizing observational study results: Applying propensity score methods to complex surveys. Health Services Research, 49(1), 284–303. doi:10.1111/1475-6773.12090
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Enders, C. K. (2001). A primer on maximum likelihood algorithms available for use with missing data. Structural Equation Modeling, 8(1), 128–141. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0801_7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Enders, C. K., & Bandalos, D. L. (2001). The relative performance of full information maximum likelihood estimation for missing data in structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling, 8, 430–457. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0803_5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Funk, M. J., Westreich, D., Wiesen, C., Sturmer, T., Brookhart, M. A., & Davidian, M. (2011). Doubly robust estimation of causal effects. American Journal of Epidemiology, 173(7), 761–767. doi:10.1093/aje/kwq439
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gu, X. S., & Rosenbaum, P. R. (1993). Comparison of multivariate matching methods: Structures, distances, and algorithms. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 2, 405–420.
   Google Scholar
• Hahs-Vaughn, D. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2006). Estimating and using propensity score analysis with complex samples. The Journal of Experimental Education, 75, 31–65. doi:10.3200/JEXE.75.1.31-65
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harring, J. R., McNeish, D. M., & Hancock, G. R. (2017). Using phantom variables in structural equation modeling to assess model sensitivity to external misspecification. Psychol Methods, 22(4), 616–631. doi:10.1037/met0000103
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heckman, J. J. (2005). The scientific model of causality. Sociological Methodology, 35, 1–97. doi:10.1111/j.0081-1750.2006.00164.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heeringa, S. G., West, B. T., & Berglund, P. A. (2010). Applied survey data analysis. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hill, J. (2004). Reducing bias in treatment effect estimation in observational studies suffering from missing data. ISERP working papers. Columbia University Academic Commons, Institute for Social and Economic Research and Policy, Columbia University. doi:10.7916/D8B85G11
   Google Scholar
• Ho, D. E., Imai, K., King, G., & Stuart, E. A. (2007). Matching as nonparametric preprocessing for reducing model dependence in parametric causal inference. Political Analysis, 15(3), 199–236. doi:10.1093/pan/mpl013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holland, P. W. (1986). Statistics and causal inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81(396), 945–960. doi:10.1080/01621459.1986.10478354
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hong, G. (2010). Marginal mean weighting through stratification: Adjustment for selection bias in multilevel data. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 35(5), 499–531. doi:10.3102/1076998609359785
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hong, G. (2012). Marginal mean weighting through stratification: A generalized method for evaluating multivalued and multiple treatments with nonexperimental data. Psychological Methods, 17(1), 44–60. doi:10.1037/a0024918
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hong, G., & Raudenbush, S. W. (2005). Effects of kindergarten retention policy on children’s cognitive growth in reading and mathematics. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27(3), 205–224. doi:10.3102/01623737027003205
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hong, G., & Raudenbush, S. W. (2006). Evaluating kindergarten retention policy: A case study of causal inference for multilevel observational data. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 101(475), 901–910. doi:10.1198/016214506000000447
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoshino, T., Kurata, H., & Shigemasu, K. (2006). A propensity score adjustment for multiple group structural equation modeling. Psychometrika, 71, 691–712. doi:10.1007/S11336-005-1370-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hui, J., & Rubin, D. B. (2008). Principal stratification for causal inference with extended partial compliance. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 103(481), 101–111. doi:10.1198/016214507000000347
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Imbens, G. W. (2004). Nonparametric estimation of average treatment effects under exogeneity: A review. Review of Economics & Statistics, 86(1), 4–29. doi:10.1162/003465304323023651
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Imbens, G. W., & Wooldridge, J. M. (2009). Recent developments in the econometrics of program evaluation. Journal of Economic Literature, 47(1), 5–86. doi:10.1257/jel.47.1.5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jo, B., & Stuart, E. A. (2009). On the use of propensity scores in principal causal effect estimation. Statistics in Medicine, 28(23), 2857–2875. doi:10.1002/sim.3669
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jo, B., Stuart, E. A., MacKinnon, D. P., & Vinokur, A. D. (2011). The use of propensity scores in mediation analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46(3), 425–452. doi:10.1080/00273171.2011.576624
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jo, B., & Vinokur, A. D. (2011). Sensitivity analysis and bounding of causal effects with alternative identifying assumptions. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics. doi:10.3102/1076998610383985
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jöreskog, K. G. (1971). Statistical analysis of sets of congeneric tests. Psychometrika, 36(2), 109–133. doi:10.1007/BF02291393
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kang, J. D. Y., & Schafer, J. L. (2007). Demystifying double robustness: A comparison of alternative strategies for estimating a population mean from incomplete data. Statistical Science, 22(4), 523–539. doi:10.1214/07-sts227
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaplan, D. (1999). An extension of the propensity score adjustment method for the analysis of group differences in MIMIC models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 34(4), 467–492. doi:10.1207/S15327906MBR3404_4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelcey, B. M. (2011). Assessing the effects of teachers’ reading knowledge on students’ achievement using multilevel propensity score stratification. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(4), 458–482. doi:10.3102/0162373711415262
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kish, L. (1965). Survey sampling. New York, NY: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Lanza, S. T., Coffman, D. L., & Xu, S. (2013). Causal inference in latent class analysis. Structural Equation Modeling: a Multidisciplinary Journal, 20(3), 361–383. doi:10.1080/10705511.2013.797816
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, B. K., Lessler, J., & Stuart, E. A. (2011). Weight trimming and propensity score weighting. PLoS ONE, 6(3), 1–6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leite, W. L. (2015). Latent growth modeling of longitudinal data with propensity score matched groups. In W. Pan & H. Bai (Eds.), Propensity score analysis: Fundamentals, developments, and extensions (pp. 191–216). New York, NY: Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• Leite, W. L. (2017). Practical propensity score methods using R. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Leite, W. L., & Aydin, B. (2016, April). A comparison of methods for imputation of missing covariate data prior to propensity score analysis. Paper presented at the American Education Research Association Conference, Washington, D.C.
   Google Scholar
• Leite, W. L., Jimenez, F., Kaya, Y., Stapleton, L. M., MacInnes, J. W., & Sandbach, R. (2015). An evaluation of weighting methods based on propensity scores to reduce selection bias in multilevel observational studies. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 50(3), 265–284. doi:10.1080/00273171.2014.991018
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, L., Shen, C., Wu, A. C., & Li, X. (2011). Propensity score-based sensitivity analysis method for uncontrolled confounding. American Journal of Epidemiology. doi:10.1093/aje/kwr096
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lohr, S. (1999). Sampling: Design and analysis. Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lunceford, J. K., & Davidian, M. (2004). Stratification and weighting via the propensity score in estimation of causal treatment effects: A comparative study. Statistics in Medicine, 23, 2937–2960. doi:10.1002/sim.1903
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCaffrey, D. F., Griffin, B. A., Almirall, D., Slaughter, M. E., Ramchand, R., & Burgette, L. F. (2013). A tutorial on propensity score estimation for multiple treatments using generalized boosted models. Statistics in Medicine, 19, 3388–3414. doi:10.1002/sim.5753
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCaffrey, D. F., Ridgeway, G., & Morral, A. R. (2004). Propensity score estimation with boosted regression for evaluating causal effects in observational studies. Psychological Methods, 9, 403–425. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.9.4.403
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNeish, D., Stapleton, L. M., & Silverman, R. D. (2017). On the unnecessary ubiquity of hierarchical linear modeling. Psychological Methods, 22, 114–140. doi:10.1037/met0000078
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58(4), 525–543. doi:10.1007/BF02294825
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Millsap, R. E., & Olivera-Aguillar, M. (2012). Investigating measurement invariance using confirmatory factor analysis. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 380–392). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mitra, R., & Reiter, J. P. (2012). A comparison of two methods of estimating propensity scores after multiple imputation. Statistical Methods in Medical Research. doi:10.1177/0962280212445945
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muthén & Muthén. (2017). Mplus (Version 8.0). Los Angeles, CA: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Muthén, B., & Asparouhov, T. (2014). Causal effects in mediation modeling: an introduction with applications to latent variables. Structural Equation Modeling, 22(1), 12–23. doi:10.1080/10705511.2014.935843
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2017). Mplus user’s guide. (Eigth ed.). Los Angele, CA: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Puma, M. J., Olsen, R. B., Bell, S. H., & Price, C. (2009). What to do when data are missing in group randomized controlled trials. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
   Google Scholar
• Raykov, T. (2012). Propensity score analysis with fallible covariates: A note on a latent variable modeling approach. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 72, 715–733. doi:10.1177/0013164412440999
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ridgeway, G., Kovalchik, S. A., Griffin, B. A., & Kabeto, M. U. (2015). Propensity score analysis with survey weighted data. Journal of Causal Inference, 3(2). doi:10.1515/jci-2014-0039
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodríguez de Gil, P., Bellara, A. P., Lanehart, R. E., Lee, R. S., Kim, E. S., & Kromrey, J. D. (2015). How do propensity score methods measure up in the presence of measurement error? A monte carlo study. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 50(5), 520–532. doi:10.1080/00273171.2015.1022643
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ronfeldt, M., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2013). How teacher turnover harms student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 50, 4–36. doi:10.3102/0002831212463813
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenbaum, P. R. (2002). Observational studies. New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41–55. doi:10.1093/biomet/70.1.41
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. doi:10.18637/jss.v048.i02
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rubin, D. B. (1974). Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 688–701. doi:10.1037/h0037350
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rubin, D. B. (1987). Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. New York, NY: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Rubin, D. B. (2005). Causal inference using potential outcomes: design, modeling, decisions. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 100(469), 322–331. doi:10.1198/016214504000001880
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rubin, D. B. (2007). The design versus the analysis of observational studies for causal effects: Parallels with the design of randomized trials. Statistics in Medicine, 26(1), 20–36. doi:10.1002/sim.2739
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rubin, D. B. (2008). For objective causal inference, design trumps analysis. The Annals of Applied Statistics, 2, 808–840. doi:10.1214/08-AOAS187
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rust, K. F., & Rao, J. N. K. (1996). Variance estimation for complex surveys using replication techniques. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 5, 283–310. doi:10.1177/096228029600500305
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schafer, J. L., & Kang, J. (2008). Average causal effects from nonrandomized studies: A practical guide and simulated example. Psychological Methods, 13(4), 279–313. doi:10.1037/a0014268
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shadish, W. R. (2010). Campbell and Rubin: A primer and comparison of their approaches to causal inference in field settings. Psychological Methods, 15(1), 3–17. doi:10.1037/a0015916
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
   Google Scholar
• Shen, C., Li, X., Li, L., & Were, M. C. (2011). Sensitivity analysis for causal inference using inverse probability weighting. Biometrical Journal, 53(5), 1–16. doi:10.1002/bimj.201100042
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stapleton, L. M. (2002). The incorporation of sample weights into multilevel structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(4), 475–503. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0904_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stapleton, L. M. (2006). An assessment of practical solutions for structural equation modeling with complex sample data. Structural Equation Modeling, 13(1), 28–58. doi:10.1207/s15328007sem1301_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stapleton, L. M. (2008). Variance estimation using replication methods in structural equation modeling with complex sample data. Structural Equation Modeling, 15(2), 183–210. doi:10.1080/10705510801922316
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steiner, P. M., Cook, T. D., & Shadish, W. R. (2011). On the importance of reliable covariate measurement in selection bias adjustments using propensity scores. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 36(2), 213–236. doi:10.3102/1076998610375835
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steiner, P. M., Cook, T. D., Shadish, W. R., & Clark, M. H. (2010). The importance of covariate selection in controlling for selection bias in observational studies. Psychological Methods, 15(3), 250–267. doi:10.1037/a0018719
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sterba, S. K. (2009). Alternative model-based and design-based frameworks for inference from samples to populations: From polarization to integration. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 44(6), 711–740. doi:10.1080/00273170903333574
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stuart, E. A., & Rubin, D. B. (2007). Best practices in quasi-experimental designs: Matching methods for causal inference. In J. Osboarne (Ed.), Best practices in quantitative methods (pp. 155–176). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Stuart, E. A. (2010). Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward. Statistical Science, 25(1), 1–21. doi:10.1214/09-sts313
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thoemmes, F. J., & Kim, E. S. (2011). A systematic review of propensity score methods in the social sciences. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46(1), 90–118. doi:10.1080/00273171.2011.540475
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tourkin, S. C., Pugh, K. W., Fondelier, S. E., Parmer, R. J., Cole, C., Jackson, B., … Walter, E. (2004). 1999–2000 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) data file user’s manual (NCES 2004–303). (FORM SAS-4A, OMB No. 1850-0598). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, & What Works Clearinghouse. (2017). What works clearinghouse: Standards handbook (Version 4.0). Washington, DC Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/referenceresources/wwc_standards_handbook_v4.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Vanderweele, T. J. (2011). Principal stratification–Uses and limitations. The International Journal of Biostatistics, 7(1). doi:10.2202/1557-4679.1329
   Google Scholar
• Wu, J.-Y., & Kwok, O.-M. (2012). Using SEM to analyze complex survey data: A comparison between design-based single-level and model-based multilevel approaches. Structural Equation Modeling, 19(1), 16–35. doi:10.1080/10705511.2012.634703
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar