Simpson's paradox and experimental research
- PMID: 19289933
- PMCID: PMC2880329
- DOI: 10.1097/NNR.0b013e318199b517
Simpson's paradox and experimental research
Abstract
Background: Experimental research in nursing has increased considerably in recent years. To improve the quality of such research, it is critical to reduce threats to internal validity. One threat that has received inadequate attention in the nursing literature is Simpson's paradox--a case of extreme confounding that can lead to erroneous conclusions about the effects of an experimental intervention. In fact, it can lead to a conclusion about an intervention effect that is the opposite of the correct inference.
Approach: The aims of this study were to describe Simpson's paradox, provide a hypothetical example, and discuss approaches to avoiding the paradox.
Results: The paradox is due to the combination of an overlooked confounding variable and a disproportionate allocation of that variable among experimental groups. Different designs and analysis approaches that can be used to avoid the paradox are presented.
Discussion: Simpson's paradox can be avoided by selecting an appropriate experimental design and analysis that incorporates the confounding variable in such a way as to obtain unconfounded estimates of treatment effects, thus more accurately answering the research question.
Similar articles
-
The Simpson's paradox unraveled.Int J Epidemiol. 2011 Jun;40(3):780-5. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyr041. Epub 2011 Mar 30. Int J Epidemiol. 2011. PMID: 21454324 Free PMC article.
-
Misleading Epidemiological and Statistical Evidence in the Presence of Simpson's Paradox: An Illustrative Study Using Simulated Scenarios of Observational Study Designs.J Med Life. 2020 Jan-Mar;13(1):37-44. doi: 10.25122/jml-2019-0120. J Med Life. 2020. PMID: 32341699 Free PMC article.
-
Simpson's Paradox is suppression, but Lord's Paradox is neither: clarification of and correction to Tu, Gunnell, and Gilthorpe (2008).Emerg Themes Epidemiol. 2019 Nov 27;16:5. doi: 10.1186/s12982-019-0087-0. eCollection 2019. Emerg Themes Epidemiol. 2019. PMID: 31788009 Free PMC article.
-
Understanding research: 2. Ensuring reliability and validity.J Wound Care. 2001 Sep;10(8):329-31. doi: 10.12968/jowc.2001.10.8.26116. J Wound Care. 2001. PMID: 12964336 Review. No abstract available.
-
Causal Modeling in WOC Nursing Research.J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2003 Jul;30(4):168-74. doi: 10.1067/mjw.2003.130. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2003. PMID: 12851591 Review. No abstract available.
Cited by
-
The prognostic role of diet quality in patients with MAFLD and physical activity: data from NHANES.Nutr Diabetes. 2024 Feb 23;14(1):4. doi: 10.1038/s41387-024-00261-x. Nutr Diabetes. 2024. PMID: 38395952 Free PMC article.
-
A Review on Metabolic Paradoxes and their Impact on Metabolism.Arch Razi Inst. 2022 Jun 30;77(3):929-941. doi: 10.22092/ARI.2021.356277.1815. eCollection 2022 Jun. Arch Razi Inst. 2022. PMID: 36618306 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Decision Curve Analysis for Personalized Treatment Choice between Multiple Options.Med Decis Making. 2023 Apr;43(3):337-349. doi: 10.1177/0272989X221143058. Epub 2022 Dec 13. Med Decis Making. 2023. PMID: 36511470 Free PMC article.
-
A Four-Year Report on Renal Outcomes Following the Elective Withdrawal of Long-Term Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone Blockade in a Cohort of Patients With Otherwise Inexplicable New-Onset and Progressive Acute Kidney Injury.Cureus. 2022 Oct 28;14(10):e30794. doi: 10.7759/cureus.30794. eCollection 2022 Oct. Cureus. 2022. PMID: 36447726 Free PMC article.
-
What These Findings Tell Us. Reply to Kelly et al. What Do These Findings Tell Us? Comment on "Tinella et al. Cognitive Efficiency and Fitness-to-Drive along the Lifespan: The Mediation Effect of Visuospatial Transformations. Brain Sci. 2021, 11, 1028".Brain Sci. 2022 Jan 29;12(2):178. doi: 10.3390/brainsci12020178. Brain Sci. 2022. PMID: 35203941 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, Egger M, Davidoff F, Elbourne D, et al. The Revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: Explanation and elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2001;134(8):663–694. - PubMed
-
- Appleton DR, French JM, Vanderpump MPJ. Ignoring a covariate: An example of Simpson's paradox. The American Statistician. 1996;50(44):340–341.
-
- Cohen J. “New-look” multiple regression/correlation analysis and the analysis of variance/covariance. In: Keren G, editor. Statistical and methodological issues in psychology and social sciences research. Erlbaum Associates; Hillsdale, NJ: 1982. pp. 41–69.
-
- Cornfield J, Haenszel W, Hammond EC, Lilienfeld AM, Shimkin MB, Wynder EL. Smoking and lung cancer: Recent evidence and a discussion of some questions. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 1959;22(1):173–203. - PubMed
-
- Hintzman DL. Simpson's paradox and the analysis of memory retrieval. Psychological Review. 1980;87(4):398–410.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources