EBMH NOTEBOOK
Understanding confounding and mediation
Correspondence to:
Dr Michael A Babyak, Duke University Medical Center, Box 3119 DUMC, Durham, NC 27710, USA; michael.babyak@duke.edu
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
In both experimental and observational studies, many researchers attempt, often implicitly, to identify causal relations among variables. In trying to understand the possible causal processes that might have generated their data, the concepts of confounding and mediation play a prominent role. The two phenomena are often confused, and indeed are not always readily distinguishable. In the present paper, I will present a brief, somewhat simplified, introduction to confounding and mediation. I will present basic defining criteria, how to distinguish the two and also the problem of cases in which the distinction is not clear, along with some final caveats.
The term confound arises from the Latin confundere, to pour together or mix.1 The English word confuse arises from the same Latin root (http://www.merriam-webster.com/). In the context of empirical research, the term confounding is most often encountered in situations where some "predictor" of interest, lets call it a
Register for free content
The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.
Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.
