» Articles » PMID: 30607660

Average Effects Based on Regressions with a Logarithmic Link Function: A New Approach with Stochastic Covariates

Overview
Journal Psychometrika
Specialty Social Sciences
Date 2019 Jan 5
PMID 30607660
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Researchers often use regressions with a logarithmic link function to evaluate the effects of a treatment on a count variable. In order to judge the average effectiveness of the treatment on the original count scale, they compute average treatment effects, which are defined as the average difference between the expected outcomes under treatment and under control. Current practice is to evaluate the expected differences at every observation and use the sample mean of these differences as a point estimate of the average effect. The standard error for this average effect estimate is based on the implicit assumption that covariate values are fixed, i.e., do not vary across different samples. In this paper, we present a new way of analytically computing average effects based on regressions with log link using stochastic covariates and develop new formulas to obtain standard errors for the average effect. In a simulation study, we evaluate the statistical performance of our new estimator and compare it with the traditional approach. Our findings suggest that the new approach gives unbiased effect estimates and standard errors and outperforms the traditional approach when strong interaction and/or a skewed covariate is present.

Citing Articles

Interactions between latent variables in count regression models.

Kiefer C, Wilker S, Mayer A Behav Res Methods. 2024; 56(8):8932-8954.

PMID: 39187739 PMC: 11525413. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-024-02483-4.


Average treatment effects on binary outcomes with stochastic covariates.

Kiefer C, Woud M, Blackwell S, Mayer A Br J Math Stat Psychol. 2024; 78(1):141-166.

PMID: 39045798 PMC: 11701421. DOI: 10.1111/bmsp.12355.

References
1.
Gatsonis C, Sampson A . Multiple correlation: exact power and sample size calculations. Psychol Bull. 1989; 106(3):516-24. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.106.3.516. View

2.
Gardner W, Mulvey E, SHAW E . Regression analyses of counts and rates: Poisson, overdispersed Poisson, and negative binomial models. Psychol Bull. 1995; 118(3):392-404. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.118.3.392. View

3.
Mayer A, Dietzfelbinger L, Rosseel Y, Steyer R . The EffectLiteR Approach for Analyzing Average and Conditional Effects. Multivariate Behav Res. 2016; 51(2-3):374-91. DOI: 10.1080/00273171.2016.1151334. View

4.
Pelham Jr W, Fabiano G, Waxmonsky J, Greiner A, Gnagy E, Pelham 3rd W . Treatment Sequencing for Childhood ADHD: A Multiple-Randomization Study of Adaptive Medication and Behavioral Interventions. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2016; 45(4):396-415. PMC: 4930381. DOI: 10.1080/15374416.2015.1105138. View

5.
Muench F, van Stolk-Cooke K, Kuerbis A, Stadler G, Baumel A, Shao S . A Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial of Different Mobile Messaging Interventions for Problem Drinking Compared to Weekly Drink Tracking. PLoS One. 2017; 12(2):e0167900. PMC: 5287456. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0167900. View