Ian J Deary1, Wendy Johnson. 1. Centre for Cognitive Ageing and Cognitive Epidemiology and Department of Psychology, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK. i.deary@ed.ac.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Educational attainment is associated with many life outcomes, including income, occupation and many health and lifestyle variables. Many researchers use it as a control variable in epidemiological and other social scientific studies, often without specifying exactly what environmental effects or set of personal characteristics is being controlled. Other researchers assume that genetically influenced intelligence drives educational attainment, and think that intelligence is the appropriate control variable. Researchers' different and often unstated causal assumptions can lead to very different analytical approaches and thus to very different results and interpretations. METHODS, RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: We document several examples of this important variation in the treatment of education and intelligence and their association. We recommend greater clarity in stating underlying assumptions and developing analytical approaches and greater objectivity in interpreting results. We discuss implications for study designs.
BACKGROUND: Educational attainment is associated with many life outcomes, including income, occupation and many health and lifestyle variables. Many researchers use it as a control variable in epidemiological and other social scientific studies, often without specifying exactly what environmental effects or set of personal characteristics is being controlled. Other researchers assume that genetically influenced intelligence drives educational attainment, and think that intelligence is the appropriate control variable. Researchers' different and often unstated causal assumptions can lead to very different analytical approaches and thus to very different results and interpretations. METHODS, RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: We document several examples of this important variation in the treatment of education and intelligence and their association. We recommend greater clarity in stating underlying assumptions and developing analytical approaches and greater objectivity in interpreting results. We discuss implications for study designs.
Authors: Riccardo E Marioni; Stuart J Ritchie; Peter K Joshi; Saskia P Hagenaars; Aysu Okbay; Krista Fischer; Mark J Adams; W David Hill; Gail Davies; Reka Nagy; Carmen Amador; Kristi Läll; Andres Metspalu; David C Liewald; Archie Campbell; James F Wilson; Caroline Hayward; Tõnu Esko; David J Porteous; Catharine R Gale; Ian J Deary Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2016-10-31 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Tian Ge; Chia-Yen Chen; Alysa E Doyle; Richard Vettermann; Lauri J Tuominen; Daphne J Holt; Mert R Sabuncu; Jordan W Smoller Journal: Cereb Cortex Date: 2019-07-22 Impact factor: 5.357
Authors: Laura B Zahodne; Elizabeth Rose Mayeda; Timothy J Hohman; Evan Fletcher; Annie M Racine; Brandon Gavett; Jennifer J Manly; Nicole Schupf; Richard Mayeux; Adam M Brickman; Dan Mungas Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2019-08-14 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Sean A P Clouston; Dylan M Smith; Soumyadeep Mukherjee; Yun Zhang; Wei Hou; Bruce G Link; Marcus Richards Journal: J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci Date: 2020-08-13 Impact factor: 4.077