Bias Amplification and Bias Unmasking

Author:

Middleton Joel A.,Scott Marc A.,Diakow Ronli,Hill Jennifer L.

Abstract

In the analysis of causal effects in non-experimental studies, conditioning on observable covariates is one way to try to reduce unobserved confounder bias. However, a developing literature has shown that conditioning on certain covariates may increase bias, and the mechanisms underlying this phenomenon have not been fully explored. We add to the literature on bias-increasing covariates by first introducing a way to decompose omitted variable bias into three constituent parts: bias due to an unobserved confounder, bias due toexcludingobserved covariates, and bias due to amplification. This leads to two important findings. Although instruments have been the primary focus of the bias amplification literature to date, we identify the fact that the popular approach of adding group fixed effects can lead to bias amplification as well. This is an important finding because many practitioners think that fixed effects are a convenient way to account for any and all group-level confounding and are at worst harmless. The second finding introduces the concept of biasunmaskingand shows how it can be even more insidious than bias amplification in some cases. After introducing these new results analytically, we use constructed observational placebo studies to illustrate bias amplification and bias unmasking with real data. Finally, we propose a way to add bias decomposition information to graphical displays for sensitivity analysis to help practitioners think through the potential for bias amplification and bias unmasking in actual applications.

Publisher

Cambridge University Press (CUP)

Subject

Political Science and International Relations,Sociology and Political Science

Reference55 articles.

1. We focus on the linear model; we expect that many of the results hold, broadly speaking, for generalized linear models (GLM). However, GLM models come with a host of their own problems with respect to bias. For example, coefficients from unadjusted and covariate adjusted logistic regression models are not comparable (Freedman 2008; VanderWeele and Arahc 2011; Breen, Karlson, and Holm 2013), a problem sometimes referred to as “non-collapsibility” (cf. VanderWeele 2015). A discussion of the bias of adjusted and unadjusted GLM estimators is beyond the scope of this article.

2. Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies.

3. Quantifying Biases in Causal Models: Classical Confounding vs Collider-Stratification Bias

4. In work that supports this contention, Clarke (2009) concludes that despite some awareness of the potential for bias, the common practice in political science is to include as many predictors as possible. The author does not specifically name fixed effects in the admonitions and instead uses simulation studies to characterize absolute bias differences under inclusion and exclusion of single predictors.

5. In our example, this translates understanding whether the randomized treatment assignment is a stronger predictor of whether or not someone will vote than the unobserved willingness to vote characteristic.

Cited by 45 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3