| Journal of Causal Inference | |
| To Adjust or Not to Adjust? Sensitivity Analysis of M -Bias and Butterfly-Bias | |
| article | |
| Peng Ding1  Luke W. Miratrix1  | |
| [1] Department of Statistics, Harvard University | |
| 关键词: causality; collider; confounding; controversy; covariate; | |
| DOI : 10.1515/jci-2013-0021 | |
| 来源: De Gruyter | |
PDF
|
|
【 摘 要 】
“ M -Bias,” as it is called in the epidemiologic literature, is the bias introduced by conditioning on a pretreatment covariate due to a particular “ M -Structure” between two latent factors, an observed treatment, an outcome, and a “collider.” This potential source of bias, which can occur even when the treatment and the outcome are not confounded, has been a source of considerable controversy. We here present formulae for identifying under which circumstances biases are inflated or reduced. In particular, we show that the magnitude of M -Bias in linear structural equation models tends to be relatively small compared to confounding bias, suggesting that it is generally not a serious concern in many applied settings. These theoretical results are consistent with recent empirical findings from simulation studies. We also generalize the M -Bias setting (1) to allow for the correlation between the latent factors to be nonzero and (2) to allow for the collider to be a confounder between the treatment and the outcome. These results demonstrate that mild deviations from the M -Structure tend to increase confounding bias more rapidly than M -Bias, suggesting that choosing to condition on any given covariate is generally the superior choice. As an application, we re-examine a controversial example between Professors Donald Rubin and Judea Pearl.
【 授权许可】
CC BY
【 预 览 】
| Files | Size | Format | View |
|---|---|---|---|
| RO202107200002823ZK.pdf | 932KB |
PDF