Cited by 19Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference

Investigating the Impact of Selection Bias in Dose-Response Analyses of Preventive Interventions

Open access
Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group*, McGowan, Herle M., Nix, Robert L., Murphy, Susan A., Bierman, Karen L.·2010·Prevention Science

Abstract

This paper focuses on the impact of selection bias in the context of extended, community-based prevention trials that attempt to "unpack" intervention effects and analyze mechanisms of change. Relying on dose-response analyses as the most general form of such efforts, this study provides two examples of how selection bias can affect the estimation of treatment effects. In Example 1, we describe an actual intervention in which selection bias was believed to influence the dose-response relation of an adaptive component in a preventive intervention for young children with severe behavior problems. In Example 2, we conduct a series of Monte Carlo simulations to illustrate just how severely selection bias can affect estimates in a dose-response analysis when the factors that affect dose are not recorded. We also assess the extent to which selection bias is ameliorated by the use of pretreatment covariates. We examine the implications of these examples and review trial design, data collection, and data analysis factors that can reduce selection bias in efforts to understand how preventive interventions have the effects they do.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11121-010-0169-2

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Feinstein AL Cramer J Spilker B 1991 Intention to treat policy for analyzing randomized trials: statistical distortions and neglected clinical challenges Patient compliance in medical practice and clinical trials New York Raven Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group*, McGowan, H. M., Nix, R. L., Murphy, S. A., & Bierman, K. L.
Affiliations
  • North Carolina State University (US)
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
Corresponding author
McGowan, Herle M.
Venue
Prevention Science
Published
2010-02-24
Volume
11
Issue
3
Pages
239-251
ISSN
  • 1389-4986 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-6695
OpenAlex
W2077849591
Cited by
19
References
58
Citations by year
2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 1
FWCI
2.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Prevention Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH080015, R01MH050953, R18MH050953)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (K02DA015674, R01DA016903, P50DA010075)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Keywords
selection bias, dose-response analysis, preventive interventions, mechanisms of change, treatment effect estimation, trial design
MeSH terms
Monte Carlo Method, Preventive Health Services, Selection Bias

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review