Navigating Unmeasured Confounding in Nonexperimental Psychological Research: A Practical Guide to Computing and Interpreting E-Value
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Randomized experiments remain the “gold standard” for establishing causality, yet ethical and practical constraints in certain fields often require researchers to rely on observational data. Although psychologists recognize that correlation does not imply causality, the conventional cautionary statements regarding correlation typically found at the end of articles have not sufficiently advanced psychological science, particularly in subfields, such as developmental and personality psychology, that predominantly rely on observational data. Sensitivity analyses commonly used in biostatistics and epidemiology offer powerful tools to quantify the risk of unmeasured confounding in observational data analysis, essentially encouraging applied researchers to assess how strongly an unmeasured confounder must be associated with both the predictor and outcome to negate an observed predictor-outcome association (i.e., reduce the effect to null). In this tutorial, we explore the frequently overlooked but critical issue of unmeasured confounding in psychological research and introduce psychologists to the E-value, a novel and straightforward method for assessing the robustness of exposure-outcome associations to unmeasured confounding. We demonstrate the application of E-value using common psychological-research scenarios in R and discuss its strengths, limitations, and recommended best practices. Psychologists can more accurately assess and transparently report research findings, particularly in subfields relying primarily on observational data, by more explicitly considering unmeasured confounding and incorporating sensitivity-analysis techniques such as the E-value into their methodological tool kits.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gpt | Metaresearch Domain: Methods · Genre: Methods About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | high |
| grok | Metaresearch Domain: Methods · Genre: Methods About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | high |
| opus | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Methods About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | medium |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.066 | 0.329 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.044 | 0.019 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 3 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".