{"title":"使用逻辑的边际和条件混淆","authors":"Kristian Bernt Karlson, Frank Popham, Anders Holm","doi":"10.1177/0049124121995548","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article presents two ways of quantifying confounding using logistic response models for binary outcomes. Drawing on the distinction between marginal and conditional odds ratios in statistics, we define two corresponding measures of confounding (marginal and conditional) that can be recovered from a simple standardization approach. We investigate when marginal and conditional confounding may differ, outline why the method by Karlson, Holm, and Breen recovers conditional confounding under a \"no interaction\"-assumption, and suggest that researchers may measure marginal confounding by using inverse probability weighting. We provide two empirical examples that illustrate our standardization approach.</p>","PeriodicalId":21849,"journal":{"name":"Sociological Methods & Research","volume":"1 1","pages":"1765-1784"},"PeriodicalIF":6.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0049124121995548","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Marginal and Conditional Confounding Using Logits.\",\"authors\":\"Kristian Bernt Karlson, Frank Popham, Anders Holm\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0049124121995548\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This article presents two ways of quantifying confounding using logistic response models for binary outcomes. Drawing on the distinction between marginal and conditional odds ratios in statistics, we define two corresponding measures of confounding (marginal and conditional) that can be recovered from a simple standardization approach. We investigate when marginal and conditional confounding may differ, outline why the method by Karlson, Holm, and Breen recovers conditional confounding under a \\\"no interaction\\\"-assumption, and suggest that researchers may measure marginal confounding by using inverse probability weighting. We provide two empirical examples that illustrate our standardization approach.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21849,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sociological Methods & Research\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"1765-1784\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0049124121995548\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sociological Methods & Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124121995548\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/4/9 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICAL METHODS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sociological Methods & Research","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124121995548","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/4/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICAL METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Marginal and Conditional Confounding Using Logits.
This article presents two ways of quantifying confounding using logistic response models for binary outcomes. Drawing on the distinction between marginal and conditional odds ratios in statistics, we define two corresponding measures of confounding (marginal and conditional) that can be recovered from a simple standardization approach. We investigate when marginal and conditional confounding may differ, outline why the method by Karlson, Holm, and Breen recovers conditional confounding under a "no interaction"-assumption, and suggest that researchers may measure marginal confounding by using inverse probability weighting. We provide two empirical examples that illustrate our standardization approach.
期刊介绍:
Sociological Methods & Research is a quarterly journal devoted to sociology as a cumulative empirical science. The objectives of SMR are multiple, but emphasis is placed on articles that advance the understanding of the field through systematic presentations that clarify methodological problems and assist in ordering the known facts in an area. Review articles will be published, particularly those that emphasize a critical analysis of the status of the arts, but original presentations that are broadly based and provide new research will also be published. Intrinsically, SMR is viewed as substantive journal but one that is highly focused on the assessment of the scientific status of sociology. The scope is broad and flexible, and authors are invited to correspond with the editors about the appropriateness of their articles.