Journal
SOCIOLOGICAL METHODS & RESEARCH
Volume 52, Issue 4, Pages 1765-1784Publisher
SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0049124121995548
Keywords
logit; odds ratio; confounding; mediation; standardization
Categories
Ask authors/readers for more resources
This article presents two ways of quantifying confounding using logistic response models for binary outcomes. The authors define two measures of confounding (marginal and conditional) and suggest that researchers may measure marginal confounding by using inverse probability weighting. They provide empirical examples to illustrate their standardization approach.
This article presents two ways of quantifying confounding using logistic response models for binary outcomes. Drawing on the distinction between marginal and conditional odds ratios in statistics, we define two corresponding measures of confounding (marginal and conditional) that can be recovered from a simple standardization approach. We investigate when marginal and conditional confounding may differ, outline why the method by Karlson, Holm, and Breen recovers conditional confounding under a no interaction-assumption, and suggest that researchers may measure marginal confounding by using inverse probability weighting. We provide two empirical examples that illustrate our standardization approach.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available