Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 Feb;41(1):196-220.
doi: 10.1214/12-aos1058.

On the definition of a confounder

Affiliations

On the definition of a confounder

Tyler J VanderWeele et al. Ann Stat. 2013 Feb.

Abstract

The causal inference literature has provided a clear formal definition of confounding expressed in terms of counterfactual independence. The causal inference literature has not, however, produced a clear formal definition of a confounder, as it has given priority to the concept of confounding over that of a confounder. We consider a number of candidate definitions arising from various more informal statements made in the literature. We consider the properties satisfied by each candidate definition, principally focusing on (i) whether under the candidate definition control for all "confounders" suffices to control for "confounding" and (ii) whether each confounder in some context helps eliminate or reduce confounding bias. Several of the candidate definitions do not have these two properties. Only one candidate definition of those considered satisfies both properties. We propose that a "confounder" be defined as a pre-exposure covariate C for which there exists a set of other covariates X such that effect of the exposure on the outcome is unconfounded conditional on (X, C) but such that for no proper subset of (X, C) is the effect of the exposure on the outcome unconfounded given the subset. A variable that helps reduce bias but not eliminate bias we propose referring to as a "surrogate confounder."

Keywords: Adjustment; causal diagrams; causal inference; confounder; counterfactuals; minimal sufficiency.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Definition 1 does not satisfy Property 2A or 2B.
Fig 2
Fig 2
Definition 2 does not satisfy Property 2A or 2B.
Fig 3
Fig 3
Definition 3 does not satisfy Property 1.
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Definition 5 does not satisfy Property 2A.

References

    1. Barnow BS, Cain GG, Goldberger AS. Issues in the analysis of selectivity bias. In: Stromsdorfer E, Farkas G, editors. Evaluation Studies. Vol. 5. Sage; San Francisco: 1980.
    1. Breslow NE, Day NE. Satistical Methods in Cancer Research, vol. 1: The Analysis of Case-Control Studies. International Agency for Research on Cancer; Lyon: 1980. - PubMed
    1. Cox DR. Planning of Experiments. John Wiley & Sons; New York: 1958.
    1. Dawid AP. Influence diagrams for causal modelling and inference. Int. Statist. Rev. 2002;70:161–189.
    1. Geng Z, Guo JH, Fung WK. Criteria for confounders in epidemiological studies. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B. 2002;64:3–15.

LinkOut - more resources