Resurrecting the Third Variable: A Critique of Pearl's Causal Analysis of Simpson's Paradox

REFERENCES

• Agresti, A. (1983), “Fallacies, Statistical,” in Encyclopedia of Statistical Science (Vol. 3), eds. S. Kotz and N.L. Johnson, New York: Wiley, pp. 24–28.
   Google Scholar
• Aldrich, J. (1995), “Correlations Genuine and Spurious in Pearson and Yule,” Statistical Science, 10, 364–376.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alin, A. (March/April 2010), “Simpson's Paradox,” WIREs Computational Statistics, 2, 247–250.
   Google Scholar
• Bickel, P.J., Hammel, E.A., and O’Connell, J.W. (1975), “Sex Bias in Graduate Admissions: Data From Berkeley,” Science, 187, 398–404.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bishop, Y.M. M., Fienberg, S.E., and Holland, P.W. (1975), Discrete Multivariate Analysis: Theory and Practice, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Blyth, C.R. (1972), “On Simpson's Paradox and the Sure-Thing Principle,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 67, 364–366.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Breslow, N.E., and Day, N.E. (1980), Statistical Methods in Cancer Research, Vol. 1: The Analysis of Case Control Studies, Lyon, France: WHO, International Agency for Research on Cancer.
   Google Scholar
• Cartwright, N. (1979), “Causal Laws and Effective Strategies,” Noûs, 13, 419–437.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cartwright, N. (1983), How the Laws of Physics Lie, New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cartwright, N. (2001), “What is Wrong With Bayes Nets?” The Monist, 84, 242–265.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, M.R., and Nagel, E. (1934), An Introduction to Logic and Scientific Method, New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co.
   Google Scholar
• Cornfield, J., Haenszel, W., Hammond, E., Lilienfeld, A., Shimkin, M., and Wynder, E. (1959), “Smoking and Lung Cancer: Recent Evidence and a Discussion of Some Questions,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 22, 173–203.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cox, D.R., and Wermuth, N. (2004), “Causality: A Statistical View,’’ International Statistical Review, 72, 285–305.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dupre, J., and Cartwright, N. (1988), “Probability and Causality: Why Hume and Indeterminism Don't Mix,” Noûs, 22, 521–536.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisher, R.A. (1934), Statistical Methods for Research Workers, Edinburgh, Scotland: Oliver and Boyd.
   Google Scholar
• Greenland, S., and Neutra, R. (1980), “Control of Confounding in the Assessment of Technology,” International Journal of Epidemiology, 9, 361–367.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Greenland, S., Pearl, J., and Robins, J.M. (1999), “Causal Diagrams for Epidemiologic Research,” Epidemiology, 10, 37–48.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gunasekara, F.I., Carter, K., and Blakely, T. (2008), “Glossary for Econometrics and Epidemiology,” Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 62, 858–861.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knapp, T.R. (June 1985), “Instances of Simpson's Paradox,” College Mathematics Journal, 16, 209–211.
   Google Scholar
• Lesser, L.M. (2001), “Representations of Reversal: An exploration of Simpson's Paradox,” National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Available at www.statlit.org/pdf/2001LesserNCTM.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Lindley, D.V., and Novick, M.R. (1981), “The Role of Exchangeability in Inference,” The Annals of Statistics, 9, 45–58.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malinas, G., and Bigelow, J. (2009), “Simpson's Paradox,” in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, eds. E.N. Zalta. . Available at http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2009/entries/paradox-simpson/.
   Google Scholar
• Niles, H.E. (May 1922), “Correlation, Causation, and Wright's Theory of ‘Path Coefficients,’” Genetics, 7, 258–273.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ooi, Y.H. (1 April 2004), “Simpson's Paradox—A Survey of Past, Present, and Future Research,” Wharton Research Scholars Journal, . University of Pennsylvania Scholarly Commons. Available at http://repository.upenn.edu/wharton_research_scholars/15.
   Google Scholar
• Pearl, J. (2009), Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference (2nd ed.), New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pearson, K., Lee, A., and Bramley-Moore, L. (1899), “Genetic (Reproductive) Selection: Inheritance of Fertility in Man and of Fecundity in Thoroughbred Racehorses,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series A, 192, 257–330.
   Google Scholar
• Robins, J.M. (1989), “The Control of Confounding by Intermediate Variables,” Statistics in Medicine, 8, 679–701.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenbaum, P.R. (1984), “The Consequences of Adjustment for a Concomitant Variable That Has Been Affected by the Treatment,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, 147, 656–666.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenbaum, P.R. (2003), “Does a Dose-Response Relationship Reduce Sensitivity to Hidden Bias?” Biostatistics, 4, 1–10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenbaum, P.R., and Rubin, D.B., (1983), “The Central Role of the Propensity Score in Observational Studies for Causal Effects,” Biometrika, 70, 41–55.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rothman, K.J., Greenland, S., and Lash, T.L. (2008), Modern Epidemiology (3rd ed.), Philadelphia PA: Walters Kluwer | Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins.
   Google Scholar
• Schield, M. (1999), “Simpson's Paradox and Cornfield's Conditions,” . paper presented at American Statistical Association, Joint Statistical Meeting 1999. Available at www.statlit.org/pdf/1999SchieldASA.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Schield, M. (2006), “Beware the Lurking Variable: Understanding Confounding From Lurking Variables Using Graphs,” STATS Magazine, 46, . Fall, 14–18.
   Google Scholar
• Schisterman, E.F., Cole, S.R., and Platt, R.W. (2009), “Overadjustment Bias and Unnecessary Adjustment in Epidemiologic Studies,” Epidemiology, 20, 488–495.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simpson, E.H. (1951), “The Interpretation of Interaction in Contingency Tables,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 13, 238–241.
   Google Scholar
• Wainer, H., and Brown, L.M., (2004), “Two Statistical Paradoxes in the Interpretation of Group Differences,” The American Statistician, 58, 117–123.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weinberg, C.R. (1993), “Toward a Clearer Definition of Confounding,” American Journal of Epidemiology, 137, 1–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yule, G.U. (February 1903), “Notes on the Theory of Association of Attributes in Statistics,” Biometrika, 2, 121–134.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zidek, J., (1984), “Maximal Simpson-Disaggregations of 2 × 2 Tables,” Biometrika, 71, 187–190.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar