Cited by 165Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Target Validity and the Hierarchy of Study Designs

Open access
Westreich, Daniel, Edwards, Jessie K, Lesko, Catherine R, Cole, Stephen R, Stuart, Elizabeth A·2019·American Journal of Epidemiology

Abstract

In recent years, increasing attention has been paid to problems of external validity, specifically to methodological approaches for both quantitative generalizability and transportability of study results. However, most approaches to these issues have considered external validity separately from internal validity. Here we argue that considering either internal or external validity in isolation may be problematic. Further, we argue that a joint measure of the validity of an effect estimate with respect to a specific population of interest may be more useful: We call this proposed measure target validity. In this work, we introduce and formally define target bias as the total difference between the true causal effect in the target population and the estimated causal effect in the study sample, and target validity as target bias = 0. We illustrate this measure with a series of examples and show how this measure may help us to think more clearly about comparisons between experimental and nonexperimental research results. Specifically, we show that even perfect internal validity does not ensure that a causal effect will be unbiased in a specific target population.

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 · 10.1093/aje/kwy228

Cites

33 of 33 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?

  • After discovering a causal mechanism, researchers still need to identify conditions that modify its effects, which requires testing for differences in effects between people, calling for more diverse samples than those initially tested.

    “after discovering a causal mechanism, researchers still need to identify conditions that modify its effects. This requires testing for differences in effects between people, calling for more diverse samples than those initially tested [3,7].”

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

1 of the 34 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Bareinboim E, Lee S, Honavar V, et al. Transportability from multiple environments with limited experiments. In: Burges CJC, Bottou L, Welling M, et al., eds. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 26. Red Hook, NY: Curran Associates, Inc.; 2014:136-144.
  2. Bareinboim E, Pearl J. Transportability from multiple environments with limited experiments: completeness results. In: Ghahramani Z, Welling M, Cortes C, et al., eds. Advances Am J Epidemiol. 2019;188(2):438-443 in Neural Information Processing Systems 27. Red Hook, NY: Curran Associates, Inc.; 2015:280-288.
  3. Pearl J, Bareinboim E. External validity and transportability: a formal approach. In: 2011 JSM Proceedings: Papers Presented at the Joint Statistical Meetings, Miami Beach, Florida, July 30-August 4, 2011, and Other ASA-Sponsored Conferences. Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association; 2011:157-171.
  4. Bareinboim E, Tian J, Pearl J. Recovering from selection bias in causal and statistical inference. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and the Twenty-Sixth Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference. Palo Alto, CA: AAAI Press; 2014: 2410-2416.
  5. Hoggatt KJ, Greenland S. Commentary: extending organizational schema for causal effects. Epidemiology. 2014; 25(1):98-102.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Westreich, D., Edwards, J. K., Lesko, C. R., Cole, S. R., & Stuart, E. A.
Affiliations
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
Westreich, Daniel
Venue
American Journal of Epidemiology
Published
2018-10-09
Volume
188
Issue
2
Pages
438-443
ISSN
  • 0002-9262 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-6256
OpenAlex
W2900846215
Cited by
165
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 12
FWCI
11.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (submittedVersion)
  • UNC Libraries
Funders
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
  • National Institutes of Health (DP2-HD084070)
  • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (R01 AI100654)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
target bias, generalizability, internal validity, causal effect estimation, target population, transportability, causal inference
MeSH terms
Epidemiologic Methods, Humans, Reproducibility of Results, Bias, Causality

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