Correcting for collider effects and sample selection bias in psychological research.

IF 7.6 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Sophia J Lamp, David P MacKinnon
{"title":"Correcting for collider effects and sample selection bias in psychological research.","authors":"Sophia J Lamp, David P MacKinnon","doi":"10.1037/met0000659","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Colliders, variables that serve as a common outcome of an independent and dependent variable, pose a major challenge in psychological research. Collider variables can induce bias in the estimation of a population relationship of interest when (a) the composition of a research sample is restricted by scores on a collider variable or (b) researchers adjust for a collider variable in their statistical analyses, as they might do for confounder variables. Both cases interfere with the accuracy and generalizability of statistical results. Despite their importance, however, collider effects remain relatively unknown in psychology. This tutorial article summarizes both the conceptual and the mathematical foundation for collider effects and their relevance to psychological research, and then proposes a method to correct for collider bias in cases of restrictive sample selection based on Thorndike's Case III adjustment (1982). Two simulation studies demonstrated Thorndike's correction as a viable solution for correcting collider bias in research studies, even when restriction on the collider variable was extreme and the selected sample size was as low as N = 100. Bias and relative bias results are reported to evaluate how well the correction equation approximates targeted population correlations under a variety of parameter conditions. We illustrate the application of the correction method to a hypothetical study of intelligence and conscientiousness, discuss the applicability of the method to more complex statistical models as a means of detection for collider bias, and provide code for researchers to apply to their own research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":20782,"journal":{"name":"Psychological methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":7.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological methods","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000659","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Colliders, variables that serve as a common outcome of an independent and dependent variable, pose a major challenge in psychological research. Collider variables can induce bias in the estimation of a population relationship of interest when (a) the composition of a research sample is restricted by scores on a collider variable or (b) researchers adjust for a collider variable in their statistical analyses, as they might do for confounder variables. Both cases interfere with the accuracy and generalizability of statistical results. Despite their importance, however, collider effects remain relatively unknown in psychology. This tutorial article summarizes both the conceptual and the mathematical foundation for collider effects and their relevance to psychological research, and then proposes a method to correct for collider bias in cases of restrictive sample selection based on Thorndike's Case III adjustment (1982). Two simulation studies demonstrated Thorndike's correction as a viable solution for correcting collider bias in research studies, even when restriction on the collider variable was extreme and the selected sample size was as low as N = 100. Bias and relative bias results are reported to evaluate how well the correction equation approximates targeted population correlations under a variety of parameter conditions. We illustrate the application of the correction method to a hypothetical study of intelligence and conscientiousness, discuss the applicability of the method to more complex statistical models as a means of detection for collider bias, and provide code for researchers to apply to their own research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
纠正心理学研究中的对撞机效应和样本选择偏差。
对撞变量是自变量和因变量的共同结果,是心理学研究中的一大挑战。当(a) 研究样本的组成受限于对撞变量的得分,或(b) 研究人员在统计分析中对对撞变量进行调整,就像对混杂变量进行调整一样,对撞变量可能会在相关人群关系的估计中产生偏差。这两种情况都会影响统计结果的准确性和普遍性。然而,尽管对撞机效应非常重要,但心理学界对其仍然相对陌生。这篇教程文章总结了对撞效应的概念和数学基础及其与心理学研究的相关性,然后根据桑代克的案例 III 调整(1982 年),提出了一种在限制性样本选择情况下纠正对撞偏差的方法。两项模拟研究表明,桑代克修正法是在调查研究中修正对撞机偏差的可行方案,即使对撞机变量的限制非常严格,所选样本量低至 N = 100。我们报告了偏差和相对偏差结果,以评估校正方程在各种参数条件下接近目标人群相关性的程度。我们说明了修正方法在智力和自觉性假设研究中的应用,讨论了该方法作为对撞机偏差检测手段在更复杂统计模型中的适用性,并提供了代码供研究人员应用于自己的研究。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA,保留所有权利)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Psychological methods
Psychological methods PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
13.10
自引率
7.10%
发文量
159
期刊介绍: Psychological Methods is devoted to the development and dissemination of methods for collecting, analyzing, understanding, and interpreting psychological data. Its purpose is the dissemination of innovations in research design, measurement, methodology, and quantitative and qualitative analysis to the psychological community; its further purpose is to promote effective communication about related substantive and methodological issues. The audience is expected to be diverse and to include those who develop new procedures, those who are responsible for undergraduate and graduate training in design, measurement, and statistics, as well as those who employ those procedures in research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信