Comment: Understanding Simpson’s Paradox

REFERENCES

• Agresti, A. (1983), “Fallacies, Statistical,” in Encyclopedia of Statistical Science (vol. 3), eds. S. Kotz and N. Johnson, New York: Wiley, pp. 24–28.
   Google Scholar
• Arah, O. (2008), “The Role of Causal Reasoning in Understanding Simpson’s Paradox, Lord’s Paradox, and the Suppression Effect: Covariate Selection in the Analysis of Observational Studies,” Emerging Themes in Epidemiology, 4, DOI:10.1186/1742-7622-5-5. Available at http://www.ete-online.com/content/5/1/5.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Berkson, J. (1946), “Limitations of the Application of Fourfold Table Analysis to Hospital Data,” Biometrics Bulletin, 2, 47–53.
   Google Scholar
• Bishop, Y., Fienberg, S., and Holland, P. (1975), Discrete Multivariate Analysis: Theory and Practice, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Blyth, C. (1972), “On Simpson’s Paradox and the Sure-Thing Principle,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 67, 364–366.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, M., and Nagel, E. (1934), An Introduction to Logic and the Scientific Method, New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.
   Google Scholar
• Hernán, M., Clayton, D., and Keiding, N. (2011), “The Simpson’s Paradox Unraveled,” International Journal of Epidemiology, 40, 780–785. .
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Imai, K., Keele, L., and Yamamoto, T. (2010), “Identification, Inference, and Sensitivity Analysis for Causal Mediation Effects,” Statistical Science, 25, 51–71.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lauritzen, S. (1996), Graphical Models (reprinted 2004 with corrections), Oxford: Clarendon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lindley, D., and Novick, M. (1981), “The Role of Exchangeability in Inference,” The Annals of Statistics, 9, 45–58.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meek, C., and Glymour, C. (1994), “Conditioning and Intervening,” British Journal of Philosophy Science, 45, 1001–1021.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Novick, M. (1983), “The Centrality of Lord’s Paradox and Exchangeability for all Statistical Inference,” in Principles of Modern Psychological Measurement, eds. H. Wainer and S. Messick, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 41–53.
   Google Scholar
• Pearl, J. (1988), Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems, San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
   Google Scholar
• ——— (1993), “Comment: Graphical Models, Causality, and Intervention,” Statistical Science, 8, 266–269.
   Google Scholar
• ——— (1995), “Causal Diagrams for Empirical Research,” Biometrika, 82, 669–710.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ——— (2001), “Direct and Indirect Effects,” in Proceedings of the Seventeenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 411–420.
   Google Scholar
• ——— (2009), Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference (2nd ed.), New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• ——— (2013), “Interpretation and Identification of Causal Mediation,” Psychological Methods.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearl, J., and Paz, A. (2013), “Confounding Equivalence in Causal Inference,” . Technical Report no. R-343w, Department of Computer Science, University of California, Los Angeles, CA. Revised and submitted, October 2013, available at http://ftp.cs.ucla.edu/pub/stat_ser/r343w.pdf.
   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., and Greenland, S. (1992), “Identifiability and Exchangeability for Direct and Indirect Effects,” Epidemiology, 3, 143–155.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shpitser, I., VanderWeele, T., and Robins, J. (2010), “On the Validity of Covariate Adjustment for Estimating Causal Effects,” in Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, Corvallis, OR: AUAI, pp. 527–536.
   Google Scholar
• Simpson, E. (1951), “The Interpretation of Interaction in Contingency Tables,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 13, 238–241.
   Google Scholar
• VanderWeele, T. (2009), “Marginal Structural Models for the Estimation of Direct and Indirect Effects,” Epidemiology, 20, 18–26.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wasserman, L. (2004), All of Statistics: A Concise Course in Statistical Inference, New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Whittemore, A. (1978), “Collapsibility of Multidimensional Contingency Tables,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 40, 328–340.
   Google Scholar
• Yule, G. (1903), “Notes on the Theory of Association of Attributes in Statistics,” Biometrika, 2, 121–134.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar