Causal Inference and Generalization in Field Settings

West, Stephen G.; Cham, Heining; Liu, Yu

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511996481.007

Cited by 109 publications

(141 citation statements)

References 112 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

141

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Whereas concerns about contaminating influences and other threats to internal validity are extensive and well discussed elsewhere (see Cook & Campbell, 1979;Shadish et al, 2002;West, Biesanz, & Pitts, 2000), our primary focus here concerns threats to the implied causal sequence of effects in a mediational design. Revisiting our training example, a misspecification of causal sequence can emanate from the influence of an omitted (sometimes referred to as unmeasured, third, contaminating, hidden, or confounding) variable.…”

Section: Experimental Designsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clarifying conditions and decision points for mediational type inferences in Organizational Behavior

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryAlthough mediational designs and analyses are quite popular in Organizational Behavior research, there is much confusion surrounding the basis of causal inferences. We review theoretical, research design, and construct validity issues that are important for drawing inferences from mediational analyses. We then distinguish between indirect effects, and partial and full mediational hypotheses and outline decision points for drawing inferences of each type. An empirical illustration is provided using structural equation modeling (SEM) techniques, and we discuss extensions and directions for future research.

show abstract

Section: Experimental Designsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clarifying conditions and decision points for mediational type inferences in Organizational Behavior

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First, we examined whether status self-enhancement led to lower levels of social acceptance (Hypothesis 1). The longitudinal design allowed us to test directionality by using lagged-effects analyses (Kenny & Campbell, 1999;West, Biesanz, & Pitts, 2000). If the analyses indicated that status self-enhancement at one point in time predicted social acceptance at a later point in time, this would support our hypothesis that groups are less accepting of individuals who engage in status self-enhancement.…”

Section: Main Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 83%

Knowing your place: Self-perceptions of status in face-to-face groups.

Anderson

Srivastava

Beer

et al. 2006

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

421

347

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Status is the prominence, respect, and influence individuals enjoy in the eyes of others. Theories of positive illusions suggest that individuals form overly positive perceptions of their status in face-to-face groups. In contrast, the authors argue that individuals' perceptions of their status are highly accuratethat is, they closely match the group's perception of their status-because forming overly positive status self-perceptions can damage individuals' acceptance in a group. Therefore, the authors further argue that individuals are likely to refrain from status self-enhancement to maintain their belongingness in a group. Support for their hypotheses was found in 2 studies of status in face-to-face groups, using a social relations model approach (D. A. Kenny & L. La Voie, 1984). Individuals showed high accuracy in perceiving their status and even erred on the side of being overly humble. Moreover, enhancement in status self-perceptions was associated with lower levels of social acceptance.

show abstract

“…In seminal work, Rosenbaum andRubin (1983, 1984) showed that using propensity scores in hypotheses testing produced unbiased estimates of the true group difference. Unlike analysis of covariance, propensity score methods account for group differences by modeling the sampling process and addressing selection bias with a theoretically unlimited number of confounding variables related in any way to group selection (McCaffrey, Ridgeway, & Morral, 2004;Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002;West, Biesanz, & Pitts, 2000).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using Propensity Score Modeling to Minimize the Influence of Confounding Risks Related to Prenatal Tobacco Exposure

Fang

Johnson

Chevalier

et al. 2010

Nicotine &Amp; Tobacco Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Despite efforts to control for confounding variables using stringent sampling plans, selection bias typically exists in observational studies, resulting in unbalanced comparison groups. Ignoring selection bias can result in unreliable or misleading estimates of the causal effect. Methods:Generalized boosted models were used to estimate propensity scores from 42 confounding variables for a sample of 361 neonates. Using emergent neonatal attention and orientation skills as an example developmental outcome, we examined the impact of tobacco exposure with and without accounting for selection bias. Weight at birth, an outcome related to tobacco exposure, also was used to examine the functionality of the propensity score approach.Results: Without inclusion of propensity scores, tobacco-exposed neonates did not differ from their nonexposed peers in attention skills over the first month or in weight at birth. When the propensity score was included as a covariate, exposed infants had marginally lower attention and a slower linear change rate at 4 weeks, with greater quadratic deceleration over the first month. Similarly, exposure-related differences in birth weight emerged when propensity scores were included as a covariate. Conclusions:The propensity score method captured the selection bias intrinsic to this observational study of prenatal tobacco exposure. Selection bias obscured the deleterious impact of tobacco exposure on the development of neonatal attention. The illustrated analytic strategy offers an example to better characterize the impact of prenatal tobacco exposure on important developmental outcomes by directly modeling and statistically accounting for the selection bias from the sampling process.

show abstract

Causal Inference and Generalization in Field Settings

Cited by 109 publications

References 112 publications

Clarifying conditions and decision points for mediational type inferences in Organizational Behavior

Clarifying conditions and decision points for mediational type inferences in Organizational Behavior

Knowing your place: Self-perceptions of status in face-to-face groups.

Using Propensity Score Modeling to Minimize the Influence of Confounding Risks Related to Prenatal Tobacco Exposure

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About