Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-kw2vx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T07:00:24.493Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
This chapter is part of a book that is no longer available to purchase from Cambridge Core

8 - Muddied waters: the challenge of confounding

Penny Webb  and
Chris Bain
Penny Webb
Affiliation:
Queensland Institute of Medical Research
Chris Bain
Affiliation:
University of Queensland
Get access

Summary

Box 8.1 Are university admissions biased towards men?

Table 8.1 shows that in one year a prestigious university admitted 52% of male applicants compared with only 45% of female applicants, suggesting that there was a bias in favour of men. When quizzed about this, the two main faculty heads said that it couldn't be true, they had both admitted a higher proportion of women than men: the success rate in arts was 38% for women and only 32% for men and that in science was 66% for women compared with only 62% for men. How can this be?

This is an example of Simpson's paradox, an extreme form of confounding where an apparent association observed in a study is in the opposite direction to the true association. In this example it arose because women were much more likely to apply to arts courses, for which applicants had a lower overall success rate.

(Based on an analysis of graduate admissions data conducted at the University of California, Berkeley (Bickel et al., 1975).)

In Chapters 6 and 7 we considered two reasons why the results of a study might not be the truth, namely chance and error or bias. In this chapter we will consider a third possible ‘alternative explanation’ – confounding.

Confounding refers to a mixing or muddling of effects that can occur when the relationship we are interested in is confused by the effect of something else, just as we see in the striking example in Box 8.1.

Type
Chapter
Information
Essential Epidemiology
An Introduction for Students and Health Professionals
 , pp. 197 - 220
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bickel, P. J., Hammel, E. A. and O'Connell, J. W. (1975). Sex bias in graduate admissions: data from Berkeley. Science, 187: 398–404.Google Scholar
Davey, Smith G. and Ebrahim, S. (2004). Mendelian randomization: prospects, potentials, and limitations. International Journal of Epidemiology, 33: 30–42.Google Scholar
Earle, C.C., Tsai, J. S., Gelber, R. D. et al. (2001). Effectiveness of chemotherapy for advanced lung cancer in the elderly: instrumental variable and propensity analysis. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 19: 1064–1070.Google Scholar
Feskanich, D., Ziegler, R. G., Michaud, D. S. et al. (2000). Prospective study of fruit and vegetable consumption and risk of lung cancer among men and women. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 92: 1812–1823.Google Scholar
Fleischer, N. L. and Diez Roux, A. V. (2008). Using directed accylic graphs to guide analyses of neighbourhood health effects: an introduction. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 62: 842–846.Google Scholar
Greenland, S., Pearl, J. and Robins, J. M. (1999). Causal diagrams for epidemiologic research. Epidemiology, 10: 37–48.Google Scholar
Guiltinan, A. M., Kaidarova, Z., Custer, B. et al. (2008). Increased all-cause, liver, and cardiac mortality among hepatitis C virus-seropositive blood donors. American Journal of Epidemiology, 167: 743–750.Google Scholar
Joffe, M. M. and Rosenbaum, P. R. (1999). Invited commentary: propensity scores. American Journal of Epidemiology, 150: 327–333.Google Scholar
Lardelli-Claret, P., Luna-del-Castillo, J. D. D. and Jimenez-Moleon, J. J. (2003). Position on the moped, risk of head injury and helmet use: an example of confounding effect. International Journal of Epidemiology, 32: 162–164.Google Scholar
Mantel, N. and Haenszel, W. (1959). Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 22: 719–748.Google Scholar
Miettinen, O. S. (1983). The need for randomization in the study of intended effects. Statistics in Medicine, 2: 267–271.Google Scholar
Vessey, M. P. and Lawless, M. (1984). The Oxford Family Planning Association contraceptive study. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 11: 743–757.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×