Mickey, R. M. (Dept of Mathematics and Statistics, U. of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405) and S. Greenland. The impact of confounder selection criteria on effect estimation. Am J Epidemiol 1989;129:125-37.Much controversy exists regarding proper methods for the selection of variables in confounder control. Many authors condemn any use of significance testing, some encourage such testing, and others propose a mixed approach. This paper presents the results of a Monte Carlo simulation of several confounder selection criteria, including change-in-estimate and collapsibility test criteria. The methods are compared with respect to their Impact on Inferences regarding the study factor's effect, as measured by test size and power, bias, mean-squared error, and confidence Interval coverage rates. In situations in which the best decision (of whether or not to adjust) is not always obvious, the change-in-estimate criterion tends to be superior, though significance testing methods can perform acceptably If their significance levels are set much higher than conventional levels (to values of 0.20 or more). © 1989 by The Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health.
Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.
CITATION STYLE
Mickey, R. M., & Greenland, S. (1989). The impact of confounder selection criteria on effect estimation. American Journal of Epidemiology, 129(1), 125–137. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a115101