Random Forests is a statistical learning method which
has been proposed for propensity score estimation models that
involve complex interactions, nonlinear relationships, or both of
the covariates. In this dissertation I conducted a simulation study
to examine the effects of three Random Forests model specifications
in propensity score analysis. The results suggested that, depending
on the nature of data, optimal specification of (1) decision rules
to select the covariate and its split value in a Classification
Tree, (2) the number of covariates randomly sampled for selection,
and (3) methods of estimating Random Forests propensity scores
could potentially produce an unbiased average treatment effect
estimate after propensity scores weighting by the odds adjustment.
Compared to the logistic regression estimation model using the true
propensity score model, Random Forests had an additional advantage
in producing unbiased estimated standard error and correct
statistical inference of the average treatment effect. The
relationship between the balance on the covariates' means and the
bias of average treatment effect estimate was examined both within
and between conditions of the simulation. Within conditions, across
repeated samples there was no noticeable correlation between the
covariates' mean differences and the magnitude of bias of average
treatment effect estimate for the covariates that were imbalanced
before adjustment. Between conditions, small mean differences of
covariates after propensity score adjustment were not sensitive
enough to identify the optimal Random Forests model specification
for propensity score analysis.