A partial dependence factorial analysis to deal with selection bias in observational studis

This thesis presents a creative and practical approach to dealing with the problem of selection bias. Selection bias may be the most important vexing problem in program evaluation or in any line of research that attempts to assert causality. Some of the greatest minds in economics and statistics have scrutinized the problem of selection bias, with the resulting approaches – Rubin’s Potential Outcome Approach(Rosenbaum and Rubin,1983; Rubin, 1991,2001,2004) or Heckman’s Selection model (Heckman, 1979) – being widely accepted and used as the best fixes. These solutions to the bias that arises in particular from self selection are imperfect, and many researchers, when feasible, reserve their strongest causal inference for data from experimental rather than observational studies. The innovative aspect of this thesis is to propose a data transformation that allows measuring and testing in an automatic and multivariate way the presence of selection bias. The approach involves the construction of a multi-dimensional conditional space of the X matrix in which the bias associated with the treatment assignment has been eliminated. Specifically, we propose the use of a partial dependence analysis of the X-space as a tool for investigating the dependence relationship between a set of observable pre-treatment categorical covariates X and a treatment indicator variable T, in order to obtain a measure of bias according to their dependence structure. The measure of selection bias is then expressed in terms of inertia due to the dependence between X and T that has been eliminated. Given the measure of selection bias, we propose a multivariate test of imbalance in order to check if the detected bias is significant, by using the asymptotical distribution of inertia due to T (Estadella et al. 2005) , and by preserving the multivariate nature of data. Further, we propose the use of a clustering procedure as a tool to find groups of comparable units on which estimate local causal effects, and the use of the multivariate test of imbalance as a stopping rule in choosing the best cluster solution set. The method is non parametric, it does not call for modeling the data, based on some underlying theory or assumption about the selection process, but instead it calls for using the existing variability within the data and letting the data to speak. The idea of proposing this multivariate approach to measure selection bias and test balance comes from the consideration that in applied research all aspects of multivariate balance, not represented in the univariate variable- by-variable summaries, are ignored. The first part contains an introduction to evaluation methods as part of public and private decision process and a review of the literature of evaluation methods. The attention is focused on Rubin Potential Outcome Approach, matching methods, and briefly on Heckman’s Selection Model. The second part focuses on some resulting limitations of conventional methods, with particular attention to the problem of how testing in the correct way balancing. The third part contains the original contribution proposed , a simulation study that allows to check the performance of the method for a given dependence setting and an application to a real data set. Finally, we discuss, conclude and explain our future perspectives.

Multiple testing in spatial epidemiology: a Bayesian approach

In this work we aim to propose a new approach for preliminary epidemiological studies on Standardized Mortality Ratios (SMR) collected in many spatial regions. A preliminary study on SMRs aims to formulate hypotheses to be investigated via individual epidemiological studies that avoid bias carried on by aggregated analyses. Starting from collecting disease counts and calculating expected disease counts by means of reference population disease rates, in each area an SMR is derived as the MLE under the Poisson assumption on each observation. Such estimators have high standard errors in small areas, i.e. where the expected count is low either because of the low population underlying the area or the rarity of the disease under study. Disease mapping models and other techniques for screening disease rates among the map aiming to detect anomalies and possible high-risk areas have been proposed in literature according to the classic and the Bayesian paradigm. Our proposal is approaching this issue by a decision-oriented method, which focus on multiple testing control, without however leaving the preliminary study perspective that an analysis on SMR indicators is asked to. We implement the control of the FDR, a quantity largely used to address multiple comparisons problems in the eld of microarray data analysis but which is not usually employed in disease mapping. Controlling the FDR means providing an estimate of the FDR for a set of rejected null hypotheses. The small areas issue arises diculties in applying traditional methods for FDR estimation, that are usually based only on the p-values knowledge (Benjamini and Hochberg, 1995; Storey, 2003). Tests evaluated by a traditional p-value provide weak power in small areas, where the expected number of disease cases is small. Moreover tests cannot be assumed as independent when spatial correlation between SMRs is expected, neither they are identical distributed when population underlying the map is heterogeneous. The Bayesian paradigm oers a way to overcome the inappropriateness of p-values based methods. Another peculiarity of the present work is to propose a hierarchical full Bayesian model for FDR estimation in testing many null hypothesis of absence of risk.We will use concepts of Bayesian models for disease mapping, referring in particular to the Besag York and Mollié model (1991) often used in practice for its exible prior assumption on the risks distribution across regions. The borrowing of strength between prior and likelihood typical of a hierarchical Bayesian model takes the advantage of evaluating a singular test (i.e. a test in a singular area) by means of all observations in the map under study, rather than just by means of the singular observation. This allows to improve the power test in small areas and addressing more appropriately the spatial correlation issue that suggests that relative risks are closer in spatially contiguous regions. The proposed model aims to estimate the FDR by means of the MCMC estimated posterior probabilities b i's of the null hypothesis (absence of risk) for each area. An estimate of the expected FDR conditional on data (\FDR) can be calculated in any set of b i's relative to areas declared at high-risk (where thenull hypothesis is rejected) by averaging the b i's themselves. The\FDR can be used to provide an easy decision rule for selecting high-risk areas, i.e. selecting as many as possible areas such that the\FDR is non-lower than a prexed value; we call them\FDR based decision (or selection) rules. The sensitivity and specicity of such rule depend on the accuracy of the FDR estimate, the over-estimation of FDR causing a loss of power and the under-estimation of FDR producing a loss of specicity. Moreover, our model has the interesting feature of still being able to provide an estimate of relative risk values as in the Besag York and Mollié model (1991). A simulation study to evaluate the model performance in FDR estimation accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of the decision rule, and goodness of estimation of relative risks, was set up. We chose a real map from which we generated several spatial scenarios whose counts of disease vary according to the spatial correlation degree, the size areas, the number of areas where the null hypothesis is true and the risk level in the latter areas. In summarizing simulation results we will always consider the FDR estimation in sets constituted by all b i's selected lower than a threshold t. We will show graphs of the\FDR and the true FDR (known by simulation) plotted against a threshold t to assess the FDR estimation. Varying the threshold we can learn which FDR values can be accurately estimated by the practitioner willing to apply the model (by the closeness between\FDR and true FDR). By plotting the calculated sensitivity and specicity (both known by simulation) vs the\FDR we can check the sensitivity and specicity of the corresponding\FDR based decision rules. For investigating the over-smoothing level of relative risk estimates we will compare box-plots of such estimates in high-risk areas (known by simulation), obtained by both our model and the classic Besag York Mollié model. All the summary tools are worked out for all simulated scenarios (in total 54 scenarios). Results show that FDR is well estimated (in the worst case we get an overestimation, hence a conservative FDR control) in small areas, low risk levels and spatially correlated risks scenarios, that are our primary aims. In such scenarios we have good estimates of the FDR for all values less or equal than 0.10. The sensitivity of\FDR based decision rules is generally low but specicity is high. In such scenario the use of\FDR = 0:05 or\FDR = 0:10 based selection rule can be suggested. In cases where the number of true alternative hypotheses (number of true high-risk areas) is small, also FDR = 0:15 values are well estimated, and \FDR = 0:15 based decision rules gains power maintaining an high specicity. On the other hand, in non-small areas and non-small risk level scenarios the FDR is under-estimated unless for very small values of it (much lower than 0.05); this resulting in a loss of specicity of a\FDR = 0:05 based decision rule. In such scenario\FDR = 0:05 or, even worse,\FDR = 0:1 based decision rules cannot be suggested because the true FDR is actually much higher. As regards the relative risk estimation, our model achieves almost the same results of the classic Besag York Molliè model. For this reason, our model is interesting for its ability to perform both the estimation of relative risk values and the FDR control, except for non-small areas and large risk level scenarios. A case of study is nally presented to show how the method can be used in epidemiology.

Local home bias: Theory and new empirical evidence from Italy

This thesis examines the literature on local home bias, i.e. investor preference towards geographically nearby stocks, and investigates the role of firm’s visibility, profitability, and opacity in explaining such behavior. While firm’s visibility is expected to proxy for the behavioral root originating such a preference, firm’s profitability and opacity are expected to capture the informational one. I find that less visible, and more profitable and opaque firms, conditionally to the demand, benefit from being headquartered in regions characterized by a scarcity of listed firms (local supply of stocks). Specifically, research estimates suggest that firms headquartered in regions with a poor supply of stocks would be worth i) 11 percent more if non-visible, non-profitable and non-opaque; ii) 16 percent more if profitable; and iii) 28 percent more if both profitable and opaque. Overall, as these features are able to explain most, albeit not all, of the local home bias effect, I reasonably argue and then assess that most of the preference for local is determined by a successful attempt to exploit local information advantage (60 percent), while the rest is determined by a mere (irrational) feeling of familiarity with the local firm (40 percent). Several and significant methodological, theoretical, and practical implications come out.

A threshold hypothesis of institutional change: collective action in the Italian Alps during the 13th - 19th centuries.

This dissertation is about collective action issues in common property resources. Its focus is the “threshold hypothesis,” which posits the existence of a threshold in group size that drives the process of institutional change. This hypothesis is tested using a six-century dataset concerning the management of the commons by hundreds of communities in the Italian Alps. The analysis seeks to determine the group size threshold and the institutional changes that occur when groups cross this threshold. There are five main findings. First, the number of individuals in villages remained stable for six centuries, despite the population in the region tripling in the same period. Second, the longitudinal analysis of face-to-face assemblies and community size led to the empirical identification of a threshold size that triggered the transition from informal to more formal regimes to manage common property resources. Third, when groups increased in size, gradual organizational changes took place: large groups split into independent subgroups or structured interactions into multiple layers while maintaining a single formal organization. Fourth, resource heterogeneity seemed to have had no significant impact on various institutional characteristics. Fifth, social heterogeneity showed statistically significant impacts, especially on institutional complexity, consensus, and the relative importance of governance rules versus resource management rules. Overall, the empirical evidence from this research supports the “threshold hypothesis.” These findings shed light on the rationale of institutional change in common property regimes, and clarify the mechanisms of collective action in traditional societies. Further research may generalize these conclusions to other domains of collective action and to present-day applications.