Literaturnachweis - Detailanzeige
Autor/in | Young, Cristobal |
---|---|
Titel | The Difference between Causal Analysis and Predictive Models: Response to "Comment on Young and Holsteen (2017)" |
Quelle | In: Sociological Methods & Research, 48 (2019) 2, S.431-447 (17 Seiten)
PDF als Volltext |
Sprache | englisch |
Dokumenttyp | gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz |
ISSN | 0049-1241 |
DOI | 10.1177/0049124118782542 |
Schlagwörter | Stellungnahme; Causal Models; Predictor Variables; Research Methodology; Ambiguity (Context); Robustness (Statistics); Computation |
Abstract | The commenter's proposal may be a reasonable method for addressing uncertainty in predictive modeling, where the goal is to predict "y." In a treatment effects framework, where the goal is causal inference by conditioning-on-observables, the commenter's proposal is deeply flawed. The proposal (1) ignores the definition of omitted-variable bias, thus systematically omitting critical kinds of controls; (2) assumes for convenience there are no bad controls in the model space, thus waving off the premise of model uncertainty; and (3) deletes virtually all alternative models to select a single model with the highest R[superscript 2]. Rather than showing what model assumptions are necessary to support one's preferred results, this proposal favors biased parameter estimates and deletes alternative results before anyone has a chance to see them. In a treatment effects framework, this is not model robustness analysis but simply biased model selection. [For "The Difference between Instability and Uncertainty: Comment on Young and Holsteen (2017)" (Adam Slez), see EJ1212204.] (As Provided). |
Anmerkungen | SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: http://sagepub.com |
Erfasst von | ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC |
Update | 2020/1/01 |