  Instrumental variables (IVs) are extensively used to estimate treatment
effects when the treatment and outcome are confounded by unmeasured
confounders; however, weak IVs are often encountered in empirical studies and
may cause problems. Many studies have considered building a stronger IV from
the original, possibly weak, IV in the design stage of a matched study at the
cost of not using some of the samples in the analysis. It is widely accepted
that strengthening an IV tends to render nonparametric tests more powerful and
will increase the power of sensitivity analyses in large samples. In this
article, we re-evaluate this conventional wisdom to bring new insights into
this topic. We consider matched observational studies from three perspectives.
First, we evaluate the trade-off between IV strength and sample size on
nonparametric tests assuming the IV is valid and exhibit conditions under which
strengthening an IV increases power and conversely conditions under which it
decreases power. Second, we derive a necessary condition for a valid
sensitivity analysis model with continuous doses. We show that the $\Gamma$
sensitivity analysis model, which has been previously used to come to the
conclusion that strengthening an IV increases the power of sensitivity analyses
in large samples, does not apply to the continuous IV setting and thus this
previously reached conclusion may be invalid. Third, we quantify the bias of
the Wald estimator with a possibly invalid IV under an oracle and leverage it
to develop a valid sensitivity analysis framework; under this framework, we
show that strengthening an IV may amplify or mitigate the bias of the
estimator, and may or may not increase the power of sensitivity analyses. We
also discuss how to better adjust for the observed covariates when building an
IV in matched studies.
