How do we know we need to control for selectivity?

In the previous two decades there has been considerable progress in recognizing biases due to selectivity that are associated with the use of observational data to make causal inferences and in developing models to control for these biases statistically. Often there is a difference between estimates...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research 2003-09-01
Series:Demographic Research
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.demographic-research.org/special/1/4/
id doaj-cf371063217f411ea2fd3d643c859c4f
record_format Article
spelling doaj-cf371063217f411ea2fd3d643c859c4f2020-11-24T23:19:28ZengMax Planck Institute for Demographic ResearchDemographic Research1435-98712003-09-01Special collection 14How do we know we need to control for selectivity?In the previous two decades there has been considerable progress in recognizing biases due to selectivity that are associated with the use of observational data to make causal inferences and in developing models to control for these biases statistically. Often there is a difference between estimates produced by models that attempt to control for selectivity and those that do not. Since a difference alone does not persuasively argue for one model over another, analysts typically rely on their a priori expectations of selectivity based on theory or intuition. Here we suggest that the analyst's judgement about the appropriate analytical model may be informed by simple descriptive statistics and qualitative data. We use data on social networks collected in rural Kenya, since the analysis of networks is likely to raise questions of selectivity, and simple examples. Although we do not provide general rules for assessing when models that control for selectivity should be used, we conclude by recommending that analysts inform their judgement rather than rely on theory and intuition to justify controlling for selectivity. Although our data are particular, the implications of our approach are general, since a priori evaluations of the credibility of assumptions on which analytic models are based can be made in other settings and for other research questions.http://www.demographic-research.org/special/1/4/AIDS/HIVfamily planningsocial networks
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
title How do we know we need to control for selectivity?
spellingShingle How do we know we need to control for selectivity?
Demographic Research
AIDS/HIV
family planning
social networks
title_short How do we know we need to control for selectivity?
title_full How do we know we need to control for selectivity?
title_fullStr How do we know we need to control for selectivity?
title_full_unstemmed How do we know we need to control for selectivity?
title_sort how do we know we need to control for selectivity?
publisher Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research
series Demographic Research
issn 1435-9871
publishDate 2003-09-01
description In the previous two decades there has been considerable progress in recognizing biases due to selectivity that are associated with the use of observational data to make causal inferences and in developing models to control for these biases statistically. Often there is a difference between estimates produced by models that attempt to control for selectivity and those that do not. Since a difference alone does not persuasively argue for one model over another, analysts typically rely on their a priori expectations of selectivity based on theory or intuition. Here we suggest that the analyst's judgement about the appropriate analytical model may be informed by simple descriptive statistics and qualitative data. We use data on social networks collected in rural Kenya, since the analysis of networks is likely to raise questions of selectivity, and simple examples. Although we do not provide general rules for assessing when models that control for selectivity should be used, we conclude by recommending that analysts inform their judgement rather than rely on theory and intuition to justify controlling for selectivity. Although our data are particular, the implications of our approach are general, since a priori evaluations of the credibility of assumptions on which analytic models are based can be made in other settings and for other research questions.
topic AIDS/HIV
family planning
social networks
url http://www.demographic-research.org/special/1/4/
_version_ 1725578854006784000