Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-cf9d5c678-h2mp8 Total loading time: 0.242 Render date: 2021-07-27T23:15:25.097Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Omitted Variables, Countervailing Effects, and the Possibility of Overadjustment*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 November 2016

Abstract

The effect of conditioning on an additional covariate on confounding bias depends, in part, on covariates that are unobserved. We characterize the conditions under which the interaction between a covariate that is available for conditioning and one that is not can affect bias. When the confounding effects of two covariates, one of which is observed, are countervailing (in opposite directions), conditioning on the observed covariate can increase bias. We demonstrate this possibility analytically, and then show that these conditions are not rare in actual data. We also consider whether balance tests or sensitivity analysis can be used to justify the inclusion of an additional covariate. Our results indicate that neither provide protection against overadjustment.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
© The European Political Science Association 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Kevin A. Clarke is an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627-0146 (kevin.clarke@rochester.edu). Brenton Kenkel is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37203 (brenton.kenkel@vanderbilt.edu). Miguel R. Rueda is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30233 (miguel.rueda@emory.edu). A previous version of this paper was given at the 27th Annual Summer Meeting of the Society for Political Methodology. The authors thank the participants for their comments. The authors thank Jake Bowers, John Jackson, Michael Peress, the editor, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments and discussion. Brad Smith provided excellent research assistance. Errors remain the authors own. To view supplementary material for this article, please visit https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2016.46

References

Arceneaux, Kevin, Gerber, Alan S., and Green, Donald P.. 2006. ‘Comparing Experimental and Matching Methods Using a Large-Scale Voter Mobilization Experiment’. Political Analysis 14(1):3762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arceneaux, Kevin, Gerber, Alan S., and Green, Donald P.. 2010. ‘A Cautionary Note on the Use of Matching to Estimate Causal Effects: An Empirical Example Comparing Matching Estimates to an Experimental Benchmark’. Sociological Methods and Research 39(2):256282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhattacharya, Jay, and Vogt, William B.. 2007. ‘Do Instrumental Variables Belong in Propensity Scores?’. Technical Report No. 343, NBER, MA.Google Scholar
Clarke, Kevin A. 2005. ‘The Phantom Menace: Omitted Variable Bias in Econometric Research’. Conflict Management and Peace Science 22(4):341352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, Kevin A. 2009. ‘Return of the Phantom Menace: Omitted Variable Bias in Econometric Research’. Conflict Management and Peace Science 26(1):4666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornfield, Jerome, Haenszel, William, Hammond, E. Cuyler, Lilienfeld, Abraham M., Shimkin, Michael B., and Wynder, Ernst L.. 1959. ‘Smoking and Lung Cancer: Recent Evidence and a Discussion of Some Questions’. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 22(1):173203.Google Scholar
Dehejia, Rajeev H., and Wahba, Sadek. 1999. ‘Causal Effects in Non-Experimental Studies: Reevaluating the Evaluation of Training Programs’. Journal of the American Statistical Association 94(448):10531062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeLuca, Giuseppe, Magnus, Jan R., and Peracchi, Franco. 2015. ‘On the Ambiguous Consequences of Omitting Variables’. Technical report, Einaudi Institute for Economics and Finance Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Ho, Daniel E., Imai, Kosuke, King, Gary, and Stuart, Elizabeth A.. 2007. ‘Matching as Nonparametric Preprocessing for Reducing Model Dependence in Parametric Causal Inference’. Political Analysis 15(3):199236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hosman, Carrie A., Hansen, Ben B., and Holland, Paul W.. 2010. ‘The Sensitivity of Linear Regression Coefficients’ Confidence Limits to the Omission of a Confounder’. The Annals of Applied Statistics 4(2):849870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iacus, Stefano M. 2007. ‘rrp: Random Recursive Partitioning’. R package version 0.7. Available at http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/rrp/.Google Scholar
LaLonde, Robert. 1986. ‘Evaluating the Econometric Evaluations of Training Programs With Experimental Data’. American Economic Review 76(4):604620.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, David, Gibson, John, and Stillman, Steven. 2010. ‘How Important is Selection? Experimental Vs Non-Experimental Measures of Income Gains from Migration’. Journal of the European Economic Association 8(4):913945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, Errol. 2010. ‘The Anosognosic’s Dilemma: Something’s Wrong But You’ll Never Know What It Is (Part 1)’. The New York Times. Available at http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/the-anosognosics-dilemma-1/?_r=0, accessed 20 June 2010.Google Scholar
Pearl, Judea. 2010. ‘On a Class of Bias-Amplifying Variables That Endanger Effect Estimates’. In Peter Grunwald and Peter Spirtes (eds), Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Conference Annual Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI-10), 417–24. Corvallis, OR: AUAI Press.Google Scholar
Pearl, Judea. 2011. ‘Invited Commentary: Understanding Bias Amplification’. American Journal of Epidemiology 174(11):12231227.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosenbaum, Paul R. 1988. ‘Sensitivity Analysis for Matching With Multiple Controls’. Biometrika 75(3):577581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbaum, Paul R., and Rubin, Donald B.. 1983a. ‘The Central Role of the Propensity Score in Observational Studies for Causal Effect’. Biometrika 70(1):4155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbaum, Paul R., and Rubin, Donald B.. 1983b. ‘Assessing Sensitivity to an Unobserved Binary Covariate in an Observational Study With Binary Outcome’. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 45(2):212218.Google Scholar
Rubin, Donald B. 2009. ‘Should Observational Studies be Designed to Allow Lack of Balance in Covariate Distributions Across Treatment Groups?’. Statistics in Medicine 28(9):14201423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, Halbert, and Lu, Xun. 2011. ‘Causal Diagrams for Treatment Effect Estimation With Application to Efficient Covariate Selection’. The Review of Economics and Statistics 93(4):14531459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wooldridge, J. 2009. ‘Should Instrumental Variables be Used as Matching Variables?’. Technical report, Michigan State University, Lansing, MI.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: Link
Link
5
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Omitted Variables, Countervailing Effects, and the Possibility of Overadjustment*
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Omitted Variables, Countervailing Effects, and the Possibility of Overadjustment*
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Omitted Variables, Countervailing Effects, and the Possibility of Overadjustment*
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *