Home > Publications . Search All . Browse All . Country . Browse PSC Pubs . PSC Report Series

PSC In The News

RSS Feed icon

COSSA makes 10 suggestions to next Administration for supporting and using social science research

Thompson says US prison population is 'staggeringly high' at about 1.5 million, despite 2% drop for 2015

Levy et al. find Michigan's Medicaid expansion boosted state's economy while increasing number of insured

More News

Highlights

2017 PAA Annual Meeting, April 27-29, Chicago

NIH funding opportunity: Etiology of Health Disparities and Health Advantages among Immigrant Populations (R01 and R21), open Jan 2017

Russell Sage 2017 Summer Institute in Computational Social Science, June 18-July 1. Application deadline Feb 17.

Russell Sage 2-week workshop on social science genomics, June 11-23, 2017, Santa Barbara

More Highlights

Next Brown Bag

Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at noon:
Decline of cash assistance and child well-being, Luke Shaefer

Assessing the Total Effect of Time-Varying Predictors in Prevention Research

Publication Abstract

Bray, B.C., Daniel Almirall, R.S. Zimmerman, D. Lynam, and Susan A. Murphy. 2006. "Assessing the Total Effect of Time-Varying Predictors in Prevention Research." Prevention Science, 7(1): 1-17.

Observational data are often used to address prevention questions such as, "If alcohol initiation could be delayed, would that in turn cause a delay in marijuana initiation?" This question is concerned with the total causal effect of the timing of alcohol initiation on the timing of marijuana initiation. Unfortunately, when observational data are used to address a question such as the above, alternative explanations for the observed relationship between the predictor, here timing of alcohol initiation, and the response abound. These alternative explanations are due to the presence of confounders. Adjusting for confounders when using observational data is a particularly challenging problem when the predictor and confounders are time-varying. When time-varying confounders are present, the standard method of adjusting for confounders may fail to reduce bias and indeed can increase bias. In this paper, an intuitive and accessible graphical approach is used to illustrate how the standard method of controlling for confounders may result in biased total causal effect estimates. The graphical approach also provides an intuitive justification for an alternate method proposed by James Robins [Robins, J. M. (1998). 1997 Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, section on Bayesian statistical science (pp. 1 - 10). Retrieved from http://www.biostat.harvard.edu/robins/research.html; Robins, J. M., Hernan, M., & Brumback, B. (2000). Epidemiology, 11( 5), 550 - 560]. The above two methods are illustrated by addressing the motivating question. Implications for prevention researchers who wish to estimate total causal effects using longitudinal observational data are discussed.

DOI:10.1007/s11121-005-0023-0 (Full Text)

PMCID: PMC1479302. (Pub Med Central)

Browse | Search : All Pubs | Next