Simpson's paradox and experimental research

Nursing Research

Volumn 58, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 123-127

  Ameringer, Suzanne ^a   Serlin, Ronald C ^b   Ward, Sandra ^c  

^a VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Department of Educational Psychology ^*

^c UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

Confounding variables; Simpson's paradox; Stratification

Indexed keywords

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; EPIDEMIOLOGY; EQUIPMENT; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; NURSING RESEARCH; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY; STANDARD; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); CONFOUNDING FACTORS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; EFFECT MODIFIERS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); HUMANS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; NURSING RESEARCH; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH DESIGN; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 63549126457     PISSN: 00296562     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/NNR.0b013e318199b517     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Altman, D. G., Schulz, K. F., Moher, D., Egger, M., Davidoff, F., Elbourne, D., et al. (2001). The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: Explanation and elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine, 134(8), 663-694.
2. Appleton, D. R., French, J. M., & Vanderpump, M. P. J. (1996). Ignoring a covariate: An example of Simpson's paradox. American Statistician, 50(44), 340-341.
3. Cohen, J. (1982). "New-look" multiple regression/correlation analysis and the analysis of variance/covariance. In G. Keren (Ed.), Statistical and methodological issues in psychology and social sciences research (pp. 41-69). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
4. Cornfield, J., Haenszel, W., Hammond, E. C., Lilienfeld, A. M., Shimkin, M. B., & Wynder, E. L. (1959). Smoking and lung cancer: Recent evidence and a discussion of some questions. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 22(1), 173-203.
5. Hintzman, D. L. (1980). Simpson's paradox and the analysis of memory retrieval. Psychological Review, 87(4), 398-410.
6. Hsu, L. M. (1989). Random sampling, randomization, and equivalence of contrasted groups in psychotherapy outcome research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57(1), 131-137.
7. International Conference on Harmonisa-tion Harmonised Tripartite Guideline. (1999). Statistical principles for clinical trials. International Conference on Harmonisation E9 Expert Working Group. Statistics in Medicine, 18(15), 1905-1942.
8. Julious, S. A., & Mullee, M. A. (1994). Confounding and Simpson's paradox. British Journal of Medicine, 309(6967), 1480-1481.
9. Keogh, E., & Eccleston, C. (2006). Sex differences in adolescent chronic pain and pain-related coping. Pain, 123(3), 275-284.
10. Lachin, J. M. (1988). Properties of simple randomization in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials, 9(4), 312-326.
11. MacCallum, R. C., Zhang, S., Preacher, K. J., & Rucker, D. D. (2002). On the practice of dichotomization of quantitative variables. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 19-40.
12. Marascuilo, L. A., & Serlin, R. C. (1988). Statistical methods for the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 562-591). New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
13. Maxwell, S. E, & Delaney, H. D. (1993). Bivariate median splits and spurious statistical significance. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 181-190.
14. McEntegart, D. J. (2003). The pursuit of balance using stratified and dynamic randomization techniques: An overview. Drug Information Journal, 37(3), 293-308.
15. Neutel, C. I. (1997). The potential for Simpson's paradox in drug utilization studies. Annals of Epidemiology, 7(7), 517-521.
16. Perera, R. (2006). Statistics and death from me-ningococcal disease in children. British Medical Journal, 332(7553), 1297-1298.
17. Polit, D. F., & Hungler, B. P. (1999). Nursing research. Principles and methods (6th ed., pp. 175-218). Philadelphia: Lippincott.
18. Reintjes, R., de Boer, A., van Pelt, W., & Mintjes-de Groot, J. (2000). Simpson's paradox: An example from hospital epidemiology. Epidemiology, 11(1), 81-83.
19. Rücker, G., & Schumacher, M. (2008). Simpson's paradox visualized: The example of the Rosiglitazone meta-analysis. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8, 34.
20. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference (pp. 279-313). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
21. Simpson, E. H. (1951). The interpretation of interaction in contingency tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B, Methodological, 13(2), 238-241.
22. Tu, D., Shalay, K., & Pater, J. (2000). Adjustment of treatment effect for covar-iates in clinical trials: Statistical and regulatory issues. Drug Information Journal, 34, 511-523.
23. Wagner, C. H. (1982). Simpson's paradox in real life. American Statistician, 36(1), 46-48.
24. Weir, C. J., & Lees, K. R. (2003). Comparison of stratification and adaptive methods for treatment allocation in an acute stroke clinical trial. Statistics in Medicine, 22, 705-726.
25. Zeller, R., Good, M., Anderson, G. C., & Zeller, D. L. (1997). Strengthening experimental design by balancing potentially confounding variables across treatment groups. Nursing Research, 46(6), 345-349.