Response to: Simpson's Paradox is suppression, but Lord's Paradox is neither: clarification of and correction to Tu, Gunnell, and Gilthorpe (2008) by Nickerson CA & Brown NJL (https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-7622-5-2)
- PMID: 32190094
- PMCID: PMC7066787
- DOI: 10.1186/s12982-020-00089-7
Response to: Simpson's Paradox is suppression, but Lord's Paradox is neither: clarification of and correction to Tu, Gunnell, and Gilthorpe (2008) by Nickerson CA & Brown NJL (https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-7622-5-2)
Abstract
We commend Nickerson and Brown on their insightful exposition of the mathematical algebra behind Simpson's paradox, suppression and Lord's paradox; we also acknowledge there can be differences in how Lord's paradox is approached analytically, compared to Simpson's paradox and suppression, though not in every example of Lord's paradox. Furthermore, Simpson's paradox, suppression and Lord's paradox ask the same contextual questions, seeking to understand if statistical adjustment is valid and meaningful, identifying which analytical option is correct. In our exposition of this, we focus on the perspective of context, which must invoke causal thinking. From a causal thinking perspective, Simpson's paradox, suppression and Lord's paradox present very similar analytical challenges.
© The Author(s) 2020.
Conflict of interest statement
Competing interestsNeither author has any competing interests.
Comment on
-
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.
References
-
- Lord FM. Statistical adjustments when comparing preexisting groups. Psychol Bull. 1969;72:337–338. doi: 10.1037/h0028108. - DOI
-
- Pearl J, Glymour MM, Jewell NP. Causal inference in statistics: a primer. London: Wiley; 2016.
Publication types
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources