The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Age period cohort analysis: a review of what we should and shouldn’t do
Abstract
Context: Age, period and birth cohort (APC) effects have been known for decades in biological, health and social sciences. However, exact collinearity between these three (Age = Year – Birth Year) leads to difficulty estimating these effects. It is thus impossible to estimate linear components of these effects without strong assumptions about at least one of these. This is problematic for anyone interested in APC patterns. Attempts to ‘solve’ this identification problem without strong assumptions are, in fact, making hidden unintended assumptions.Objective: Provide an overview of what APC effects are and the nature of the identification problem, before reviewing and critiquing methodological literature across the health and social sciences. I also present an argument for what researchers should do.Method: Non-systematic review of methodological literature across health and social sciences.Results: Recommendations include considering non-linearities around linear APC effects and stating strong and explicit theory-based assumptions. Mechanical solutions to the identification problem do not work.Conclusion: These recommendations acknowledge there is a ‘line of solutions’ of possible combinations of APC effects, and not a single answer that can be estimated empirically. None of these methods solve the identification problem – rather they acknowledge that methods are limited by assumptions.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Cao, F., Xu, Z., Li, X.-X., Fu, Z.-Y., Han, R.-Y., Zhang, J.-L., Wang, P., Hou, S., & Pan, H.-F. (2024) · Ageing Research Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.arr.2024.102382 · Cited by 291
Su, Z., Zou, Z., Hay, S. I., Liu, Y., Li, S., Chen, H., Naghavi, M., Zimmerman, M. S., Martin, G. R., Wilner, L. B., et al. (2022) · eClinicalMedicine · doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.101249 · Cited by 280
Longer-Term Effects of Voting at Age 16: Higher Turnout Among Young People in Scotland
Eichhorn, J., & Huebner, C. (2025) · Politics and Governance · doi:10.17645/pag.9283 · Cited by 9
“While we recognise the difficulties of disentangling age—from cohort‐related patterns in cross‐sectional data (Bell, 2020; Serra & Smets, 2022), by exploiting the unique mixture of cohorts after the lowering of the voting age in Scotland and grouping the cohorts according to age at the time of…”
Metadata
- Authors
- Bell, A.
- Venue
- Annals of Human Biology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2020-02-17
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 208-217
- ISSN
- 0301-4460 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-5033
- OpenAlex
- W2999002838
- Cited by
- 347
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 15.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Age period cohort analysis: a review of what we should and shouldn’t do. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/03014460.2019.1707872
- The paper
- Bell, A. (2020). Age period cohort analysis: a review of what we should and shouldn’t do. Annals of Human Biology. https://doi.org/10.1080/03014460.2019.1707872
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.