Ensuring Causal, Not Casual, Inference
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.
KeywordsCausal inference Randomized controlled trials Assumptions Mediation
The authors thank Wolfgang Wiedermann for the invitation to submit this commentary.
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.
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.
Because this article is a commentary, informed consent is not applicable.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Gelman, A., & Imbens, G. (2013). Why ask why? Forward causal inference and reverse causal questions. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w19614.pdf.
- 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
- Imbens, G.W., & Rubin, D. B. (2015). Causal inference in statistics, social, and biomedical sciences. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Kelcey, B., Spybrook, J., & Dong, N. (2018). Sample size planning for cluster-randomized interventions probing multilevel mediation. Prevention Science.Google Scholar
- Molenaar, P. C. (2018). Granger causality testing with intensive longitudinal data. Prevention Science, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-018-0919-0.
- 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.
- Rosenbaum, P. R. (2005). Sensitivity analysis in observational studies. In Encyclopedia of Statistics in Behavioral Science (pp. 1809–1814).Google Scholar
- Rosenbaum, P. R. (2017). Observation and experiment: An introduction to causal inference. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Shimizu, S. (2018). Non-Gaussian methods for causal structure learning. Prevention Science, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-018-0901-x.
- 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
- 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