nach oben

Prevention Science

Erschienen in:

23.06.2021

A Unification of Mediator, Confounder, and Collider Effects

verfasst von: David P. MacKinnon, Sophia J. Lamp

Erschienen in: Prevention Science | Ausgabe 8/2021

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Third-variable effects, such as mediation and confounding, are core concepts in prevention science, providing the theoretical basis for investigating how risk factors affect behavior and how interventions change behavior. Another third variable, the collider, is not commonly considered but is also important for prevention science. This paper describes the importance of the collider effect as well as the similarities and differences between these three third-variable effects. The single mediator model in which the third variable (T) is a mediator of the independent variable (X) to dependent variable (Y) effect is used to demonstrate how to estimate each third-variable effect. We provide difference in coefficients and product of coefficients estimators of the effects and demonstrate how to calculate these values with real data. Suppression effects are defined for each type of third-variable effect. Future directions and implications of these results are discussed.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

This paper describes adjustment as including an additional predictor in a regression model. Adjustment comes in other forms and names including conditioning on a variable, controlling for a variable, stratifying by a variable, and selection into a study by a variable (see Elwert & Winship, 2014 and Morgan & Winship, 2015 for more on these topics).

Asendorpf, J. B. (2012). Bias due to controlling a collider: A potentially important issue for personality research. European Journal of Personality, 26, 391–392.CrossRef

Banack, H. R., & Kaufman, J. S. (2014). The obesity paradox: Understanding the effect of obesity on mortality among individuals with cardiovascular disease. Preventive Medicine, 62, 96–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.02.003CrossRefPubMed

Berkson, J. (1946). Limitations of the application of fourfold table analysis to hospital data. Biometrics Bulletin, 2, 47–53. https://doi.org/10.2307/3002000CrossRefPubMed

Botvin, G. J., Griffin, K. W., Diaz, T., Miller, N., & Ifill-Williams, M. (1999). Smoking initiation and escalation in early adolescent girls: One-year follow-up of a school-based prevention intervention for minority youth. Journal of the American Medical Women’s Association., 54, 139–143.PubMed

Breslow, N. E., Day, N. E., & Heseltine, E. (1980). Statistical methods in cancer research (Vol. 1, pp. 248–279). Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (2019). National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 cohort, 1979–2014 . Retrieved from https://www.nlsinfo.org/content/cohorts/nlsy79

Clogg, C. C., Petkova, E., & Haritou, A. (1995). Statistical methods for comparing regression coefficients between models. American Journal of Sociology, 100, 1261–1293. https://doi.org/10.1086/230638CrossRef

Cole, S. R., Platt, R. W., Schisterman, E. F., Chu, H., Westreich, D., Richardson, D., & Poole, C. (2010). Illustrating bias due to conditioning on a collider. International Journal of Epidemiology, 39, 417–420. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyp334CrossRefPubMed

Conger, A. J. (1974). A revised definition for suppressor variables: A guide to their identification and interpretation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34, 35–46.CrossRef

Cresswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage.

Cuijpers, P. (2002). Effective ingredients of school-based drug prevention programs: A systematic review. Addictive Behaviors, 27, 1009–1023. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0306-4603(02)00295-2CrossRefPubMed

Elwert, F., & Winship, C. (2014). Endogenous selection bias: The problem of conditioning on a collider variable. Annual Review of Sociology, 40, 31–53. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043455CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Fairchild, A. J., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2009). A general model for testing mediation and moderation effects. Prevention Science, 10, 87–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-008-0109-6CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Glymour, M. M., & Hamad, R. (2018). Causal thinking as a critical tool for eliminating social inequalities in health. American Journal of Public Health, 108, 623. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304383CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Goldberg, L., Elliot, D., Clarke, G. N., MacKinnon, D. P., Moe, E., Zoref, L., & Lapin, A. (1996). Effects of a multidimensional anabolic steroid prevention intervention: The Adolescents Training and Learning to Avoid Steroids (ATLAS) program. JAMA, 276, 1555–1562. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1996.03540190027025CrossRefPubMed

Greenland, S., & Morgenstern, H. (2001). Confounding in health research. Annual Review of Public Health, 22, 189–212. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.22.1.189CrossRefPubMed

Hernán, M. (2018). The C-word: Scientific euphemisms do not improve causal inference from observational data. American Journal of Public Health, 108, 616–619. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304337CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Hernández-Díaz, S., Schisterman, E. F., & Hernán, M. A. (2006). The birth weight “paradox” uncovered? American Journal of Epidemiology, 164, 1115–1120. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwj275CrossRefPubMed

Imai, K., Keele, L., & Tingley, D. (2010). A general approach to causal mediation analysis. Psychological Methods, 15, 309–334. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020761CrossRefPubMed

James, L. R. (1980). The unmeasured variables problem in path analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 415–421. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.65.4.415CrossRef

King, G. (2015). Cover endorsement in Morgan, S. L., & Winship, C. (2015). Counterfactuals and Causal Inference. University Press.

MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum.

MacKinnon, D. P., & Dwyer, J. H. (1993). Estimating mediated effects in prevention studies. Evaluation Review, 17, 144–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X9301700202CrossRef

MacKinnon, D. P., Johnson, C. A., Pentz, M. A., Dwyer, J. H., Hansen, W. B., Flay, B. R., & Wang, E.Y.I. (1991). Mediating mechanisms in a school-based drug prevention program: First-year effects of the Midwestern Prevention Project. Health Psychology, 10, 164–172.CrossRefPubMed

MacKinnon, D. P., Krull, J. L., & Lockwood, C. M. (2000). Equivalence of the mediation, confounding, and suppression effect. Prevention Science, 1, 173–181. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026595011371CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.83CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 99–128. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3901_4CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

MacKinnon, D. P., Valente, M. J., & Gonzalez, O. J. (2020). The correspondence between causal and traditional mediation analysis: The link is the mediator by treatment interaction. Prevention Science, 21, 147–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-019-01076-4CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

MacKinnon, D. P., Valente, M. J., & Wurpts, I. C. (2018). Benchmark validation of statistical mediation analysis: Application to imagery and memory theory. Psychological Methods, 23, 654–671. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000174CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

MacKinnon, D. P., Warsi, G., & Dwyer, J. H. (1995). A simulation study of mediated effect measures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 30, 41–62. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3001_3CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Miočević, M., O’Rourke, H. P., MacKinnon, D. P., & Brown, H. C. (2018). Statistical properties of four effect size measures for mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, 50, 285–301. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0870-1CrossRefPubMed

Moldonado, G., & Greenland, S. (1993) Simulation study of confounder-selection strategies. American Journal of Epidemiology, 138, 923–936. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a116813

Morgan, S. L., & Winship, C. (2015). Counterfactuals and causal inference (2^nd Edition). New York: NY: Cambridge, MA.

Muniz, F. B., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2021). Four tests for statistical suppression. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Murray, A. L., Johnson, W., McGue, M., & Iacono, W. G. (2014). How are conscientiousness and cognitive ability related to one another? A re-examination of the intelligence compensation hypothesis. Personality and Individual Differences, 70, 17–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.06.014CrossRef

Musci, R. J., & Stuart, E. (2020). Ensuring causal, not casual inference. Prevention Science, 3, 452–456.

Pearl, J. (2009). Causal inference in statistics: An overview. Statistics Surveys, 3, 96–146. https://doi.org/10.1214/09-SS057CrossRef

Richardson, T. G., Davey Smith, G., & Munafo, M. R. (2019). Conditioning on a collider may induce spurious associations: Do the results of Gale et al., (2017) support a health-protective effect of neuroticism in population subgroups? Psychological Science, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618774532

Selvin, S. (2004). Statistical analysis of epidemiological data. Oxford.CrossRef

Stelzl, I. (1986). Changing a causal hypothesis without changing the fit. Some rules for generating equivalent path models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 21, 309–331. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2103_3CrossRefPubMed

Stuart, E. A., Bradshaw, C. P., & Leaf, P. J. (2015). Assessing the generalizability of randomized trial results to target populations. Prevention Science, 16, 475–485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-014-0513-zCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Valeri, L., & VanderWeele, T. J. (2013). Mediation analysis allowing for exposure–mediator interactions and causal interpretation: Theoretical assumptions and implementation with SAS and SPSS macros. Psychological Methods, 18, 137–150. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031034CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

VanderWeele, T. (2015). Explanation in causal inference: Methods for mediation and interaction. Oxford University Press.

Whitcomb, B. W., Schisterman, E. F., Perkins, N. J., & Platt, R. W. (2009). Quantification of collider-stratification bias and the birthweight paradox. Pediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology, 23, 394–402. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3016.2009.01053.x.CrossRefPubMed

Titel: A Unification of Mediator, Confounder, and Collider Effects
verfasst von: David P. MacKinnon
Sophia J. Lamp
Publikationsdatum: 23.06.2021
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Prevention Science / Ausgabe 8/2021
Print ISSN: 1389-4986
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-6695
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-021-01268-x

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 8/2021

Evaluation of the One Love Escalation Workshop for Dating Abuse Prevention: a Randomized Controlled Trial Pilot Study with a Sample of US Navy Sailors

Evaluation of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program in US Urban Middle Schools Using a Multiple Baseline Experimental Design

Common Methodological Problems in Randomized Controlled Trials of Preventive Interventions

Cost-benefit Analysis of the Coping and Promoting Strength Program

Using Machine Learning to Predict Young People’s Internet Health and Social Service Information Seeking

Agreement Between Self-Reported and Device-Based Sedentary Time among Eight Countries: Findings from the ELANS