Cited by 25Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

Propensity score weighting: an application to an E arly H ead S tart dental study

Open access
Burgette, Jacqueline M., Preisser, John S., Rozier, R. Gary·2016·Journal of Public Health Dentistry

Abstract

Objectives: Nonrandomized group assignment in intervention studies can lead to imbalances in preintervention covariates and biased effect estimates. We use propensity score estimation to account for such imbalances in an E arly H ead S tart (EHS) dataset with rich pretreatment information. We compare propensity score results using standard logistic regression models (LRM s) versus generalized boosted models (GBM s). Methods: We estimated propensity scores using 47 socio‐demographic characteristics and EHS enrollment criteria obtained by parent interviews from a state‐wide sample of 637 EHS and 930 Medicaid‐matched control children.LRM s and GBM s were used to estimate propensity scores related to EHS enrollment. Performance of both approaches was evaluated via a) measures of balance of pretreatment covariate distributions between treated and control subjects, and b) stability of propensity score weights measured by the effective sample size. Results: Distributions of all variables were balanced for EHS and non‐EHS groups using propensity score weights calculated with LRM and GBM. Compared with LRM,GBM resulted in better balance between treated and propensity score‐weighted control distributions. The effective sample size of the controls decreased from 930 subjects to 507 with GBM and to 335 with LRM. Conclusion: Although propensity scores derived from GBM and LRM both effectively balanced observed preintervention covariates,GBM resulted in better covariate balance compared with LRM.GBM also resulted in a larger effective sample size of the control group compared with LRM. Propensity score weighting using GBM is an effective statistical method to reduce confounding due to imbalanced distributions of measured preintervention covariates in this EHS intervention study.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jphd.12106

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Four baseline covariates were included because of their potential impact on all four dependent variables: parent health literacy, parent overall health, survey language, and a propensity score derived from 47 socio-demographic characteristics and Early Head Start enrollment criteria.

    “We included four baseline covariates in the analyses because of their potential impact on all four dependent variables: parent health literacy, parent overall health, survey language and a generalized boosted model propensity score derived from 47 socio-demographic characteristics and EHS enrollment criteria.20”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [11]Friedman JH Hastie T Tibshirani R Additive logistic regression: A statistical view of boosting Annals of Statistics 2000 28 337 374

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Burgette, J. M., Preisser, J. S., & Rozier, R. G.
Affiliations
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Corresponding author
Burgette, Jacqueline M.
Venue
Journal of Public Health Dentistry
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-06-18
Volume
76
Issue
1
Pages
17-29
ISSN
  • 0022-4006 (ISSN-L)
  • 1752-7325
OpenAlex
W1501854446
Cited by
25
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1
FWCI
2.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Public Health Dentistry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (T32DE017245, R01DE018236)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
Keywords
propensity score weighting, Early Head Start, generalized boosted models, logistic regression, covariate balance, confounding, effective sample size, early childhood intervention
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Female, Health Status Indicators, Humans, Infant, Interviews as Topic, Male, North Carolina, Logistic Models, Dental Care for Children, Propensity Score, Early Medical Intervention

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review