Multiple Control Groups

  • Paul R. Rosenbaum
Part of the Springer Series in Statistics book series (SSS)


An observational study has multiple control groups if it has several distinct groups of subjects who did not receive the treatment. In a randomized experiment, every control is denied the treatment for the same reason, namely, the toss of a coin. In an observational study, there may be several distinct ways that the treatment is denied to a subject. If these several control groups have outcomes that differ substantially and significantly, then this cannot reflect an effect of the treatment, since no control subject received the treatment. It must reflect, instead, some form of bias.


Ectopic Pregnancy Sister Chromatid Exchange Bibliographic Note Early Psychosis Cytogenetic Damage 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Berk, R. A., Lenihan, K. J., and Rossi, P. H. (1980) Crime and poverty: Some experimental evidence from ex-offenders. American Journal of Sociology, 45,766–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bilban, M. (1998) Influence of the work environment in a Pb-Zn mine on the incidence of cytogenetic damage in miners. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 34, 455–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bitterman, M. (1965) Phyletic differences in learning. American Psychologist, 20, 396–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown, K. E., Hibbs, J. R., Gallinella, G., Anderson, S. M., Lehman, E. D., McCarthy, P., and Young, N. S. (1994) Resistance to parvovirus B19 infection due to lack of virus receptor (erythrocyte P antigen) . New England Journal of Medicine, 330, 1192–1196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Campbell, D. (1969) Prospective: Artifact and Control. In Artifact in Behavioral Research, R. Rosenthal and R. Rosnow, eds., New York: Academic, pp. 351–382.Google Scholar
  6. Campbell, D. and Boruch, R. (1975) Making the case for randomized assignment to treatments by considering the alternatives: Six ways in which quasi-experimental evaluations in compensatory education tend to underestimate effects. In: Evaluation and Experiment, C. Bennett and A. Lumsdaine, eds., New York: Academic, pp. 195–296.Google Scholar
  7. Campbell, D. and Stanley, J. (1963) Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  8. Cox, D. R. (1970) The Analysis of Binary Data. London: Methuen.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Douglas, D. and Carney, G. (1998) Exposure to asphalt or bitumen fume and renal disease. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 55, 645–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ezenagu, L. C., Kakaria, R., Bofill, J. A. (1999) Sequential use of instruments at operative vaginal delivery: Is it safe? American Journal of Obsetrics and Gynecology, 180, 1446–1449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Friedman, M. (1937) The use of ranks to avoid the assumption of normality implicit in the analysis of variance. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 32, 675–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gastwirth, J. L., Krieger, A. M., and Rosenbaum, P. R. (1998) Dual and simultaneous sensitivity analysis for matched pairs. Biometrika, 85, 907–920.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hollander, M. and Wolfe, D. (1973) Nonparametric Statistical Methods. New York: Wiley.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Jackson, H., McGorry, P., Edwards, J., Hulbert, C., Henry, L., Francey, S., Maude, D., Cocks, J., Power, P., Harrigan, S., and Dudgeon, P. (1998) Cognitively-oriented psychotherapy for early psychosis (COPE): Preliminary results. British Journal of Psychiatry, 172, 93–100.Google Scholar
  15. Kim, E. H., McConnell, J. J., and Greenwood, P. R. (1977) Capital structure rearrangements and me-first rules in an efficient capital market. Journal of Finance, 32, 789–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kruskal, W. and Wallis, W. (1952) Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 47, 583 – 621.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lehmann, E. L. (1975) Nonparametrics: Statistical Methods Based on Ranks. San Francisco: Holden-Day.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Lilienfeld, A., Chang, L., Thomas, D., and Levin, M. (1976) Rauwolfia derivatives and breast cancer. Johns Hopkins Medical Journal, 139, 41–50.Google Scholar
  19. Lilienfeld, A. and Lilienfeld, D. (1980) Foundations of Epidemiology (second edition). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Maclure, M. and Greenland, S. (1992) Tests for trend and dose-response: Misinterpretations and alternatives. American Journal of Epidemiology, 135, 96–104.Google Scholar
  21. Payne, S. L. (1951) The ideal model for controlled experiments. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15, 557–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Petersson, B., Trell, E., Kristenson, H. (1982) Alcohol abstention and premature mortality in middle aged men. British Medical Journal, 285, 1457–1459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Roghmann, K. and Sodeur, W. (1972) The impact of military service on authoritarian attitudes: Evidence from West Germany. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 418–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rosenbaum, P. R. (1984) From association to causation in observational studies. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 79, 41–48.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rosenbaum, P. R. (1987) The role of a second control group in an observational study (with Discussion) . Statistical Science, 2, 292–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rosenbaum, P. R. (1989a) On permutation tests for hidden biases in observational studies: An application of Holley’s inequality to the Savage lattice. Annals of Statistics, 17, 643–653.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rosenbaum, P. R. (1989b) Sensitivity analysis for matched observational studies with many ordered treatments. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 16, 227–236.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. Rosenbaum, P. R. (2001) Stability in the absence of treatment. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 96, 210–219.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rossing, M., Daling, J., Voigt, L., Stergachis, A., and Weiss, N. (1993) Current use of an intrauterine device and risk of tubal pregnancy. Epidemiology, 4, 252–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Seltser, R. and Sartwell, P. (1965) The influence of occupational exposure to radiation on the mortality of American radiologists and other medical specialists. American Journal of Epidemiology, 81, 2–22.Google Scholar
  31. Shadish, W. R. and Cook, T. D. (1999) Design rules: More steps toward a complete theory of quasi-experimentation. Statistical Science, 14, 294–300.Google Scholar
  32. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., and Campbell, D. T. (2002) Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
  33. Solomon, R. (1949) An extension of control group design. Psychological Bulletin, 137–150.Google Scholar
  34. Taylor, W., Pearson, J., and Mair, A. (1965) Study of noise and hearing in jute weaving. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 38, 113–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Weiss, N. (1981) Inferring causal relationships: Elaboration of the criterion of “dose-response.” American Journal of Epidemiology, 113, 487–490.Google Scholar
  36. Wells, K. E., Roberts, C., Daniels, S. M., Hann, D., Clement, V., Reintgen, D., and Cox, C. E. (1997) Comparison of psychological symptoms of woman requesting removal of breast implants with those of breast cancer patients and healthy controls. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 99, 680–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Weston, J. F. and Mansinghka, S. K. (1971) Tests of the efficiency performance of conglomerate firms. Journal of Finance, 26, 919–936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zabin, L. S., Hirsch, M. B., and Emerson, M. R. (1989) When urban adolescents choose abortion: Effects on education, psychological status, and subsequent pregnancy. Family Planning Perspectives, 21, 248–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zelen, M. (1979) A new design for randomized clinical trials. New England Journal of Medicine, 300, 1242–1245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul R. Rosenbaum
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Statistics, The Wharton SchoolUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations