A comparison of self-selectivity corrections in economic evaluations and outcomes research

Jinook Jeong, Edmund R. Becker, Patrick D. Mauldin, William S. Weintraub

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objective: Two alternative selectivity correction methods have been widely applied in the health economics literature: the sample selection model (SSM) and the multipart model (MPM). The difference between these two approaches results from their initial assumptions about the distribution of error terms. Because the distributional assumptions cannot be theoretically verified, the usefulness of the methods can only be evaluated by real world comparison. This article reviews and empirically tests the two alternative selectivity correction methods to give a reality-based evaluation. Methods: Using a randomized sample of patients as the "gold standard," the SSM and MPM are applied to a non-randomized sample of patients with an identical set of dependent and independent variables. By comparing the actual estimates of the two methods, we evaluate the robustness of the two approaches. Results: The results show that neither method is empirically robust in replicating the results of the randomized trial. There is no consistent pattern in the coefficients from either selectivity-correction method for replicating the coefficients in the randomized sample. Conclusions: Researchers should be cautious in applying these correction methods, and any conclusions based on these approaches may need to be qualified.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)656-666
Number of pages11
JournalValue in Health
Volume8
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2005 Jan 1

Fingerprint

Cost-Benefit Analysis
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Economics
Research Personnel
Health

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Health Policy
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

Jeong, Jinook ; Becker, Edmund R. ; Mauldin, Patrick D. ; Weintraub, William S. / A comparison of self-selectivity corrections in economic evaluations and outcomes research. In: Value in Health. 2005 ; Vol. 8, No. 6. pp. 656-666.
@article{b9f8d78dab6740a9b6cae81469f220be,
title = "A comparison of self-selectivity corrections in economic evaluations and outcomes research",
abstract = "Objective: Two alternative selectivity correction methods have been widely applied in the health economics literature: the sample selection model (SSM) and the multipart model (MPM). The difference between these two approaches results from their initial assumptions about the distribution of error terms. Because the distributional assumptions cannot be theoretically verified, the usefulness of the methods can only be evaluated by real world comparison. This article reviews and empirically tests the two alternative selectivity correction methods to give a reality-based evaluation. Methods: Using a randomized sample of patients as the {"}gold standard,{"} the SSM and MPM are applied to a non-randomized sample of patients with an identical set of dependent and independent variables. By comparing the actual estimates of the two methods, we evaluate the robustness of the two approaches. Results: The results show that neither method is empirically robust in replicating the results of the randomized trial. There is no consistent pattern in the coefficients from either selectivity-correction method for replicating the coefficients in the randomized sample. Conclusions: Researchers should be cautious in applying these correction methods, and any conclusions based on these approaches may need to be qualified.",
author = "Jinook Jeong and Becker, {Edmund R.} and Mauldin, {Patrick D.} and Weintraub, {William S.}",
year = "2005",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.00054.x",
language = "English",
volume = "8",
pages = "656--666",
journal = "Value in Health",
issn = "1098-3015",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",
number = "6",

}

A comparison of self-selectivity corrections in economic evaluations and outcomes research. / Jeong, Jinook; Becker, Edmund R.; Mauldin, Patrick D.; Weintraub, William S.

In: Value in Health, Vol. 8, No. 6, 01.01.2005, p. 656-666.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - A comparison of self-selectivity corrections in economic evaluations and outcomes research

AU - Jeong, Jinook

AU - Becker, Edmund R.

AU - Mauldin, Patrick D.

AU - Weintraub, William S.

PY - 2005/1/1

Y1 - 2005/1/1

N2 - Objective: Two alternative selectivity correction methods have been widely applied in the health economics literature: the sample selection model (SSM) and the multipart model (MPM). The difference between these two approaches results from their initial assumptions about the distribution of error terms. Because the distributional assumptions cannot be theoretically verified, the usefulness of the methods can only be evaluated by real world comparison. This article reviews and empirically tests the two alternative selectivity correction methods to give a reality-based evaluation. Methods: Using a randomized sample of patients as the "gold standard," the SSM and MPM are applied to a non-randomized sample of patients with an identical set of dependent and independent variables. By comparing the actual estimates of the two methods, we evaluate the robustness of the two approaches. Results: The results show that neither method is empirically robust in replicating the results of the randomized trial. There is no consistent pattern in the coefficients from either selectivity-correction method for replicating the coefficients in the randomized sample. Conclusions: Researchers should be cautious in applying these correction methods, and any conclusions based on these approaches may need to be qualified.

AB - Objective: Two alternative selectivity correction methods have been widely applied in the health economics literature: the sample selection model (SSM) and the multipart model (MPM). The difference between these two approaches results from their initial assumptions about the distribution of error terms. Because the distributional assumptions cannot be theoretically verified, the usefulness of the methods can only be evaluated by real world comparison. This article reviews and empirically tests the two alternative selectivity correction methods to give a reality-based evaluation. Methods: Using a randomized sample of patients as the "gold standard," the SSM and MPM are applied to a non-randomized sample of patients with an identical set of dependent and independent variables. By comparing the actual estimates of the two methods, we evaluate the robustness of the two approaches. Results: The results show that neither method is empirically robust in replicating the results of the randomized trial. There is no consistent pattern in the coefficients from either selectivity-correction method for replicating the coefficients in the randomized sample. Conclusions: Researchers should be cautious in applying these correction methods, and any conclusions based on these approaches may need to be qualified.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=30944434187&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=30944434187&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.00054.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.00054.x

M3 - Article

C2 - 16283866

AN - SCOPUS:30944434187

VL - 8

SP - 656

EP - 666

JO - Value in Health

JF - Value in Health

SN - 1098-3015

IS - 6

ER -