Advertisement

Prevention Science

, Volume 20, Issue 3, pp 452–456 | Cite as

Ensuring Causal, Not Casual, Inference

  • Rashelle J. MusciEmail author
  • Elizabeth Stuart
Article

Abstract

With innovation in causal inference methods and a rise in non-experimental data availability, a growing number of prevention researchers and advocates are thinking about causal inference. In this commentary, we discuss the current state of science as it relates to causal inference in prevention research, and reflect on key assumptions of these methods. We review challenges associated with the use of causal inference methodology, as well as considerations for hoping to integrate causal inference methods into their research. In short, this commentary addresses the key concepts of causal inference and suggests a greater emphasis on thoughtfully designed studies (to avoid the need for strong and potentially untestable assumptions) combined with analyses of sensitivity to those assumptions.

Keywords

Causal inference Randomized controlled trials Assumptions Mediation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Wolfgang Wiedermann for the invitation to submit this commentary.

Funding

Dr. Stuart’s work on this commentary was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health, R01MH115487 (PI: Stuart).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Because this article is a commentary, informed consent is not applicable.

References

  1. Angrist, J. D., Imbens, G. W., & Rubin, D. B. (1996). Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 91, 444–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Austin, P. C., & Stuart, E. A. (2015). Moving towards best practice when using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score to estimate causal treatment effects in observational studies. Statistics in Medicine, 34, 3661–3679.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.6607.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Bray, B.C., Dziak, J.J., Oatrick, M.E., and Lanza, S. T. (2018). Inverse propensity score weighting with a latent class exposure: Estimating the causal effect of reported reasons for alcohol use on problem alcohol use 16 years later. Prevention Science.Google Scholar
  4. Ding, M., Chen, Y., & Bressler, S. L. (2006). Granger causality: Basic theory and application to neuroscience. In Handbook of Time Series Analysis: Recent Theoretical Developments and Applications (pp. 437–460).Google Scholar
  5. Gelman, A., & Imbens, G. (2013). Why ask why? Forward causal inference and reverse causal questions. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w19614.pdf.
  6. Hernán, M. A., & Robins, J. M. (2016). Using big data to emulate a target trial when a randomized trial is not available. American Journal of Epidemiology, 183, 758–764.  https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwv254.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Hernán, M. A., & Taubman, S. L. (2008). Does obesity shorten life? The importance of well-defined interventions to answer causal questions. International Journal of Obesity, 32, S8–S14.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ijo.2008.82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Holland, P. W. (1988). Causal inference, path analysis, and recursive structural equations models. In Sociological Methodology (volume 18, pp. 449–484). American Sociological Association.Google Scholar
  9. Imbens, G.W., & Rubin, D. B. (2015). Causal inference in statistics, social, and biomedical sciences. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Kelcey, B., Spybrook, J., & Dong, N. (2018). Sample size planning for cluster-randomized interventions probing multilevel mediation. Prevention Science.Google Scholar
  11. Kraemer, H. C., Wilson, G. T., Fairburn, C. G., & Agras, W. S. (2002). Mediators and moderators of treatment effects in randomized clinical trials. Archives of General Psychiatry, 59, 877–883.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Liu, W., Kuramoto, S. K., & Stuart, E. A. (2013). An introduction to sensitivity analysis for unobserved confounding in non-experimental prevention research. Prevention Science, 14, 570–580 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23408282.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Molenaar, P. C. (2018). Granger causality testing with intensive longitudinal data. Prevention Science, 1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-018-0919-0.
  14. National Insitute of Mental Health (2018). Clinical trials to test the effectiveness of treatment, preventive, and services interventions (R01 clinical trial required). Retrieved July 20, 2018, from https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-MH-18-701.html.
  15. Rosenbaum, P. R. (2005). Sensitivity analysis in observational studies. In Encyclopedia of Statistics in Behavioral Science (pp. 1809–1814).Google Scholar
  16. Rosenbaum, P. R. (2017). Observation and experiment: An introduction to causal inference. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70, 41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rubin, D. B. (1974). Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 688–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rubin, D. B. (2008). For objective causal inference, design trumps analysis. The Annals of Applied Statistics, 2, 808–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Schuler, M. S., Leoutsakos, J. M. S., & Stuart, E. A. (2014). Addressing confounding when estimating the effects of latent classes on a distal outcome. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology, 14, 232–254.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10742-014-0122-0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Shimizu, S. (2018). Non-Gaussian methods for causal structure learning. Prevention Science, 1–11.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-018-0901-x.
  22. Stuart, E. A. (2010). Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward. Statistical Science, 25, 1–21.  https://doi.org/10.1214/09-STS313.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Stuart, E. A., & Jo, B. (2015). Assessing the sensitivity of methods for estimating principal causal effects. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 24, 657–674.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0962280211421840.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Vanderweele, T. J. (2012). Invited commentary: Structural equation models and epidemiologic analysis. American Journal of Epidemiology, 176, 608–612.  https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kws213.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. VanderWeele, T. J., & Ding, P. (2017). Sensitivity analysis in observational research: Introducing the E-value. Annals of Internal Medicine, 167, 268.  https://doi.org/10.7326/M16-2607.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. West, S. G., Duan, N., Pequegnat, W., Gaist, P., Des Jarlais, D. C., Holtgrave, D., … Mullen, P. D. (2008). Alternatives to the randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Public Health, 98(8), 1359–1366.  https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2007.124446
  27. Wiedermann, W., Li, X., & von Eye, A. (2018). Testing the causal direction of mediation effects in randomized intervention studies. Prevention Science, 1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-018-0900-y

Copyright information

© Society for Prevention Research 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mental HealthJohns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public HealthBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations