TY - JOUR
T1 - Incorporating Bayesian methods into the propensity score matching framework
T2 - A no-treatment effect safety analysis
AU - Li, Lingyu
AU - Donnell, Eric T.
N1 - Funding Information:
The authors would like to acknowledge the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation for providing the data used in this study. Dr. Kari Lock Morgan from The Pennsylvania State University and Dr. Fan Li from Duke University provided valuable technical insights to the research team.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd
PY - 2020/9
Y1 - 2020/9
N2 - The propensity score matching method has been used to estimate safety countermeasure (treatment) effects from observational crash data. Within the counterfactual framework, propensity score matching is used to balance the covariates between treatment and control groups. Recent studies in traffic safety research have demonstrated the strength of this method in reducing the bias caused by treatment site selection. However, several general issues associated with safety effect estimates may still influence the effectiveness and robustness of this method. In the present study, Bayesian methods were integrated into the propensity score matching method. Bayesian models are known for their ability to capture heterogeneity and modeling uncertainty. This may help mitigate unobserved variable effects in the roadway and crash data. Furthermore, the sampling-based algorithm used for Bayesian estimation yields more consistent estimates in small region analysis than estimates from frequentist modeling. In this study, a dataset that was used to evaluate the safety effects of the dual application of shoulder and centerline rumble strips on two-lane rural highways was acquired. Only data from the before treatment period were used in a no-treatment effect analysis in order to compare the results of a Bayesian propensity score analysis to a frequentist propensity score analysis. Because no treatment was applied during the analysis period, it was assumed that there would be no treatment effect, or a crash modification factor equal to 1.0. The Bayesian propensity score matching method nominally outperformed the frequentist propensity score matching method in the largest sample and produced near-identical results in the medium sample, but neither method closely approximated the assumed, true crash modification factor in the small sample analysis. A simulation study is recommended to further study the effects of sample size and confounding factors when comparing the Bayesian and frequentist propensity score matching methods.
AB - The propensity score matching method has been used to estimate safety countermeasure (treatment) effects from observational crash data. Within the counterfactual framework, propensity score matching is used to balance the covariates between treatment and control groups. Recent studies in traffic safety research have demonstrated the strength of this method in reducing the bias caused by treatment site selection. However, several general issues associated with safety effect estimates may still influence the effectiveness and robustness of this method. In the present study, Bayesian methods were integrated into the propensity score matching method. Bayesian models are known for their ability to capture heterogeneity and modeling uncertainty. This may help mitigate unobserved variable effects in the roadway and crash data. Furthermore, the sampling-based algorithm used for Bayesian estimation yields more consistent estimates in small region analysis than estimates from frequentist modeling. In this study, a dataset that was used to evaluate the safety effects of the dual application of shoulder and centerline rumble strips on two-lane rural highways was acquired. Only data from the before treatment period were used in a no-treatment effect analysis in order to compare the results of a Bayesian propensity score analysis to a frequentist propensity score analysis. Because no treatment was applied during the analysis period, it was assumed that there would be no treatment effect, or a crash modification factor equal to 1.0. The Bayesian propensity score matching method nominally outperformed the frequentist propensity score matching method in the largest sample and produced near-identical results in the medium sample, but neither method closely approximated the assumed, true crash modification factor in the small sample analysis. A simulation study is recommended to further study the effects of sample size and confounding factors when comparing the Bayesian and frequentist propensity score matching methods.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85088140373&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85088140373&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.aap.2020.105691
DO - 10.1016/j.aap.2020.105691
M3 - Article
C2 - 32711214
AN - SCOPUS:85088140373
VL - 145
JO - Accident Analysis and Prevention
JF - Accident Analysis and Prevention
SN - 0001-4575
M1 - 105691
ER -