Minimization of Confounding in research in medical sciences

  • Mollen Akinyi Odero School of Health Sciences, Jaramogi Oginga Odinga University of Science and Technology, P. O. BOX 210-40601, Bondo
  • Nancy Odero School of Health Sciences, Jaramogi Oginga Odinga University of Science and Technology, P. O. BOX 210-40601, Bondo
  • N. B. Okelo School of Mathematics and Actuarial Science, Jaramogi Oginga Odinga University of Science and Technology, P. O. Box 210-40601, Bondo

Abstract

Confounding variables are variables that the researcher failed to control, or eliminate, damaging the internal validity of an experiment. A confounding variable, also known as a third variable or a mediator variable, can adversely affect the relation between the independent variable and dependent variable. This may cause the researcher to analyze the results incorrectly. The results may show a false correlation between the dependent and independent variables, leading to an incorrect rejection of the null hypothesis. For example, a research group might design a study to determine if heavy drinkers die at a younger age. They proceed to design a study, and set about gathering data. Their results, and a series of statistical tests, indeed show that people who drink excessively are likely to die younger. Unfortunately, when the researchers do a crosscheck with their peers, the results are ripped apart, because their peers live just as long - maybe there is another factor, not measured, that influences both drinking and living age? In many fields of science, it is difficult to remove entirely all of the variables, especially outside the controlled conditions of a lab. A well-planned experimental design, and constant checks, will filter out the worst confounding variables. For example, randomizing groups, utilizing strict controls, and sound operationalization practice all contribute to eliminating potential third variables. In this work we explore types of confounding and how to control them.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

S. C. Johnston, Identifying Confounding by Indication through Blinded Prospective Review. Am J Epidemiol Vol.154 (3),(2001)p. 276-284.

B. Pelham, Conducting Research in Psychology. Belmont: Wadsworth, 2006.

L. Steg and A.P. Buunk, Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and managing social problems. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Tjønneland, Anne; Morten Grønbæk, Connie Stripp and Kim Overvad, American Society for Nutrition American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 69 (1),(1999), p. 49-54.

O. Axelson, Confounding from smoking in occupational epidemiology, British Journal of Industrial Medicine 46, (1989) p.505-07.

J. Pearl, S. Paradox, Confounding, and Collapsibility In Causality: Models, Reasoning and Inference (2nd ed.). New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, 2009.

K. VanderWeele, T.J. Shpitser, On the definition of a confounder. Annals of Statistics, Vol. 41 (2013), p.196-220.

S.Greenland, and S. Robins, Confounding and Collapsibility in Causal Inference. Statistical Science, Vol. 14(1)(1999), p.29-46.

Published
2015-05-21
How to Cite
1.
Odero M, Odero N, Okelo N. Minimization of Confounding in research in medical sciences. AMS [Internet]. 21May2015 [cited 22Feb.2020];2(1):13-5. Available from: http://asdpub.com/index.php/ams/article/view/78
Section
Review Articles

Most read articles by the same author(s)

Obs.: This plugin requires at least one statistics/report plugin to be enabled. If your statistics plugins provide more than one metric then please also select a main metric on the admin's site settings page and/or on the journal manager's settings pages.