Skip to main content
PMC home page
International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research logoLink to International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research
. 2007 May 14;16(2):77–87. doi: 10.1002/mpr.205

Estimating causal effects from observational data with a model for multiple bias

Michael Höfler 1,✉, Roselind Lieb 2, Hans‐Ulrich Wittchen 1
PMCID: PMC6878580  PMID: 17623387

Abstract

Conventional analyses of observational data may be biased due to confounding, sampling and measurement, and may yield interval estimates that are much too narrow because they do not take into account uncertainty about unknown bias parameters, such as misclassification probabilities. We used a simple, multiple bias adjustment method to estimate the causal effect of social anxiety disorder (SAD) on subsequent depression. A Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis was applied to data from the Early Developmental Stages of Psychiatry (EDSP) study, and bias due to confounding, sampling and measurement was modelled. With conventional logistic regression analysis, the risk for depression was elevated in the presence of SAD only in the older cohort (age 17–24 years at baseline assessment); odds ratio (OR) = 3.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.64–5.70, adjusted for sex and age. The bias‐adjusted estimate was 2.01 with interval limits of 0.61 and 9.71. Thus, given the data and the bias model used, there was considerably more uncertainty about the real effect, but the probability that SAD increases the risk for subsequent depression (OR > 1) was 88.6% anyway. Multiple bias modelling, if properly used, reveals the necessity for a better understanding of bias, suggesting a need to conduct larger and more adequate validation studies on instruments that are used to diagnose mental disorders. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords: Causality, observational studies, causal effect, bias, confounding, measurement error, selection bias, mental disorders

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (218.6 KB).

REFERENCES

  1. American Psychiatric Association . Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 4 edn. Washington DC: APA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  2. Greenland S. Interpretation and choice of effect measures in epidemiological analyses. Am J Epidem 1987; 5: 761–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Greenland S. Randomization, statistics, and causal inference. Epidemiology 1990; 1: 421–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Greenland S. Basic problems in interaction assessment. Environl Health Perspect Suppl 1993; 101 Suppl 4: 59–66. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Greenland S. Sensitivity analysis, Monte Carlo risk analysis, and Bayesian uncertainty assessment. Risk Anal 2001; 4: 579–83. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Greenland S. The impact of prior distributions for uncontrolled confounding and response bias: a case study of the relation of wire codes and magnetic fields to childhood leukemia. J Am Stat Assoc 2003; 98: 47–54. [Google Scholar]
  7. Greenland S. Interval estimation by simulation as an alternative to and extension of confidence intervals. Int J Epidemiol 2004; 33:1–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Greenland S, Epidemiological measures and policy formulation: lessons from potential outcomes (with discussion). Emerging Themes in Epidemiology 2005a; 2: 1–4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Greenland S. Discussion on ‘Statistical issues arising in the Women's Health Initiative’. Biometrics 2005b; 61: 920–1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Greenland S. Multiple bias modelling for analysis of observational data. With discussion. J Roy Stat Soc A 2005c; 168: 267–306. [Google Scholar]
  11. Greenland S. Bayesian perspectives for epidemiological research: I. Foundation and basic methods. Int J Epidemiol 2006; 35: 765–75. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Hardt J, Rutter M. Validity of adult retrospective reports of adverse childhood experiences: review of the evidence. J Child Psychopathol 2004; 2: 260–73. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Höfler M. Causal inference based on counterfactuals. BMC Med Res Methodol 2005a; 5: 28. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Höfler M. The effect of misclassification on the estimation of association: a review. Int J Meth Psychiatr Res 2005b; 14: 92–101. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Höfler M, Pfister H, Lieb R, Wittchen HU. The use of weights to account for non‐response and dropout. Soc Psychiatr Psychiatr Epidemiol 2005; 40: 291–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Holland PW. Statistics and causal inference. J Am Stat Assoc 1986; 945–60. [Google Scholar]
  17. Kessler RC, Wittchen HU, Abelson J, Zhao S. Methodological issues in assessing psychiatric disorders with self‐reports In: Stone AA, Turkan JS, Bachrach CA, Jobe JB, Kurtzman HS, Cain VS: The Science of Self‐report: Implications for Research and Practice. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  18. Kraemer HC, Kazdin AE, Offord DR, Kessler RC, Jensen PS, Kupfer DJ. Measuring the potency of a risk factor for clinicial or policy significance. Psychol Meth 1999; 4: 257–71. [Google Scholar]
  19. Kraemer HC. Reconsidering the odds ratio as a measure of association of 2×2 association in a population. Stat Med 2003; 23: 257–70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Lieb R, Isensee B, Sydow von K, Wittchen HU (2000) The Early Developmental Stages of the Psychopathology Study (EDSP): A methodological update. Eur Add Res 6: 170–82. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Little RJ, Rubin DB. Causal effects in clinical and epidemiological studies via potential outcomes. Annu Rev Publ Health 2000; 21: 121–45. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Maclure M, Schneeweiß S. Causation of bias: the episcope. Epidemiology 2001; 12: 114–22. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Prentice RL, Pettinger M, Anderson GL. Statistical issues arising in the Women's Health Initiative. Biometrics 2005; 61: 899–941. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Reed V, Gander F, Pfister H, Steiger A, Sonntag H, Trenkwalder C, Hundt W, Wittchen HU. To what degree does the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) correctly identify DSM‐IV disorders? Testing validity issues in a clinical sample. Int J Meth Psychiatr Res 7: 142–55. [Google Scholar]
  25. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal inference. Biometrika 1983; 70: 41–55. [Google Scholar]
  26. Rothman KJ, Greenland S. Modern Epidemiology. 2 edn. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  27. Royall RM. Model robust confidence intervals using maximum likelihood estimators. Int Stat Rev 1986; 54: 221–6. [Google Scholar]
  28. Rutter M, Maughan B, Pickles A, Simonoff E. Retrospective recall recalled In: Cairns, Bergman LR, Kagan J. (eds.): Methods for Studying the Individual. London: Sage, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  29. Schwarz N, Oyserman D. Asking questions about behavior: cognition, communication, and questionnaire construction. Am J Eval 2001; 22: 127–60. [Google Scholar]
  30. Soldani F, Ghaemi N, Baldessarini R. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 2005; 112: 1–3. [DOI] [PubMed]
  31. StataCorp . Stata Statistical Software: Release 9.0. College Station, TX: Stata Corporation, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  32. Wittchen HU. Reliability and validity studies of the WHO Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) – a critical review. J Psychiatr Res 1994; 28: 57–84. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Wittchen HU, Perkonigg A, Lachner G, Nelson CB. Early Developmental Stages of Psychopathology Study (EDSP): objectives and design. Eur Addiction Res 1998; 4: 18–27. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Wittchen HU, Pfister H (eds) DIA‐X‐Interviews. Manual für Screening‐Verfahren und Interview; Interviewheft Längsschnittsuntersuchung (DIA‐X Lifetime); Ergänzungsheft (DIA‐X Lifetime); Interviewheft Querschnittsuntersuchung (DIA‐X 12 Monate); Ergänzungsheft (DIA‐X 12 Monate); PC‐Programm zur Durchführung der Interviews (Längs‐ und Querschnitt‐suntersuchung); Auswertungsprogramm. Frankfurt: Swets & Zeitlinger, 1997. [Google Scholar]

Articles from International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES