Ian Cero1, Sean M Mitchell1,2, Nicole M Morris2. 1. Department of Psychiatry, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, USA. 2. Department of Psychological Sciences, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Although causal inference is often straightforward in experimental contexts, few research questions in suicide are amenable to experimental manipulation and randomized control. Instead, suicide prevention specialists must rely on observational data and statistical control of confounding variables to make effective causal inferences. We provide a brief summary of recent covariate practice and a tutorial on casual inference tools for covariate selection in suicide research. METHOD: We provide an introduction to modern causal inference tools, suggestions for statistical control selection, and demonstrations using simulated data. RESULTS: Statistical controls are often mistakenly selected due to their significant correlation with other study variables, their consistency with previous research, or no explicit reason at all. We clarify what it means to control for a variable and when controlling for the wrong covariates systematically distorts results. We describe directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) and tools for identifying the right choice of covariates. Finally, we provide four best practices for integrating causal inference tools in future studies. CONCLUSION: The use of causal model tools, such as DAGs, allows researchers to carefully and thoughtfully select statistical controls and avoid presenting distorted findings; however, limitations of this approach are discussed.
OBJECTIVE: Although causal inference is often straightforward in experimental contexts, few research questions in suicide are amenable to experimental manipulation and randomized control. Instead, suicide prevention specialists must rely on observational data and statistical control of confounding variables to make effective causal inferences. We provide a brief summary of recent covariate practice and a tutorial on casual inference tools for covariate selection in suicide research. METHOD: We provide an introduction to modern causal inference tools, suggestions for statistical control selection, and demonstrations using simulated data. RESULTS: Statistical controls are often mistakenly selected due to their significant correlation with other study variables, their consistency with previous research, or no explicit reason at all. We clarify what it means to control for a variable and when controlling for the wrong covariates systematically distorts results. We describe directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) and tools for identifying the right choice of covariates. Finally, we provide four best practices for integrating causal inference tools in future studies. CONCLUSION: The use of causal model tools, such as DAGs, allows researchers to carefully and thoughtfully select statistical controls and avoid presenting distorted findings; however, limitations of this approach are discussed.
Authors: Kimberly A Van Orden; Tracy K Witte; Kelly C Cukrowicz; Scott R Braithwaite; Edward A Selby; Thomas E Joiner Journal: Psychol Rev Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 8.934
Authors: Johannes Textor; Benito van der Zander; Mark S Gilthorpe; Maciej Liskiewicz; George Th Ellison Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2016-12-01 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: Thomas E Joiner; Yeates Conwell; Kathleen Kara Fitzpatrick; Tracy K Witte; Norman B Schmidt; Marcelo T Berlim; Marcelo P A Fleck; M David Rudd Journal: J Abnorm Psychol Date: 2005-05
Authors: Sean M Mitchell; Sarah L Brown; Jared F Roush; Angelea D Bolaños; Andrew K Littlefield; Andrew J Marshall; Danielle R Jahn; Robert D Morgan; Kelly C Cukrowicz Journal: Clin Psychol Psychother Date: 2017-04-18