How Large Must an Associational Mean Difference Be to Support a Causal Effect
Publikation: Beitrag in Fachzeitschrift › Forschungsartikel › Beigetragen › Begutachtung
Beitragende
Abstract
An observational study might support a causal claim if the association found cannot be explained by bias due to unconsidered confounders. This bias depends on how strongly the common predisposition, a summary of unconsidered confounders, is related to the factor and the outcome. For a positive effect to be supported, the product of these two relations must be smaller than the left boundary of the confidence interval for, e.g., a standardised mean difference (d). We suggest means to derive heuristics for how large this product must be to serve as a confirmatory threshold. We also provide non-technical, visual means to express researchers’ assumptions on the two relations to assess whether a finding on d is explainable by omitted confounders. The ViSe tool, available as an R package and Shiny application, allows users to choose between various effect sizes and apply it to their own data or published summary results.
Details
| Originalsprache | Englisch |
|---|---|
| Seiten (von - bis) | 318-335 |
| Seitenumfang | 18 |
| Fachzeitschrift | Methodology |
| Jahrgang | 20 |
| Ausgabenummer | 4 |
| Publikationsstatus | Veröffentlicht - 2024 |
| Peer-Review-Status | Ja |
Externe IDs
| ORCID | /0000-0001-7646-8265/work/183164505 |
|---|
Schlagworte
ASJC Scopus Sachgebiete
Schlagwörter
- causality, confirmation, effect size, observational studies, software, visualisation