Dataset Information

A Graphical Catalog of Threats to Validity: Linking Social Science with Epidemiology.

ABSTRACT: Directed acyclic graphs (DAGs), a prominent tool for expressing assumptions in epidemiologic research, are most useful when the hypothetical data generating structure is correctly encoded. Understanding a study's data generating structure and translating that data structure into a DAG can be challenging, but these skills are often glossed over in training. Campbell and Stanley's framework for causal inference has been extraordinarily influential in social science training programs but has received less attention in epidemiology. Their work, along with subsequent revisions and enhancements based on practical experience conducting empirical studies, presents a catalog of 37 threats to validity describing reasons empirical studies may fail to deliver causal effects. We interpret most of these threats to study validity as suggestions for common causal structures. Threats are organized into issues of statistical conclusion validity, internal validity, construct validity, or external validity. To assist epidemiologists in drawing the correct DAG for their application, we map the correspondence between threats to validity and epidemiologic concepts that can be represented with DAGs. Representing these threats as DAGs makes them amenable to formal analysis with d-separation rules and breaks down cross-disciplinary language barriers in communicating methodologic issues.

SUBMITTER: Matthay EC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7144753 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Graphical Catalog of Threats to Validity: Linking Social Science with Epidemiology.

Matthay Ellicott C EC Glymour M Maria MM

Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) 20200501 3

Directed acyclic graphs (DAGs), a prominent tool for expressing assumptions in epidemiologic research, are most useful when the hypothetical data generating structure is correctly encoded. Understanding a study's data generating structure and translating that data structure into a DAG can be challenging, but these skills are often glossed over in training. Campbell and Stanley's framework for causal inference has been extraordinarily influential in social science training programs but has receiv ...[more]

PMID: 31977593

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWearable technologies play an important role in measuring physical activity (PA) and promoting health. Standardized validation indices (i.e., accuracy, bias, and precision) compare performance of step counting wearable technologies in young people.PurposeTo produce a catalog of validity indices for step counting wearable technologies assessed during different treadmill speeds (slow [0.8-3.2 km/h], normal [4.0-6.4 km/h], fast [7.2-8.0 km/h]), wear locations (waist, wrist/arm, thigh, and ankle), and age groups (children, 6-12 years; adolescents, 13-17 years; young adults, 18-20 years).MethodsOne hundred seventeen individuals (13.1 ± 4.2 years, 50.4% female) participated in this cross-sectional study and completed 5-min treadmill bouts (0.8 km/h to 8.0 km/h) while wearing eight devices (Waist: Actical, ActiGraph GT3X+, NL-1000, SW-200; Wrist: ActiGraph GT3X+; Arm: SenseWear; Thigh: activPAL; Ankle: StepWatch). Directly observed steps served as the criterion measure. Accuracy (mean absolute percentage error, MAPE), bias (mean percentage error, MPE), and precision (correlation coefficient, r; standard deviation, SD; coefficient of variation, CoV) were computed.ResultsFive of the eight tested wearable technologies (i.e., Actical, waist-worn ActiGraph GT3X+, activPAL, StepWatch, and SW-200) performed at < 5% MAPE over the range of normal speeds. More generally, waist (MAPE = 4%), thigh (4%) and ankle (5%) locations displayed higher accuracy than the wrist location (23%) at normal speeds. On average, all wearable technologies displayed the lowest accuracy across slow speeds (MAPE = 50.1 ± 35.5%), and the highest accuracy across normal speeds (MAPE = 15.9 ± 21.7%). Speed and wear location had a significant effect on accuracy and bias (P < 0.001), but not on precision (P > 0.05). Age did not have any effect (P > 0.05).ConclusionsStandardized validation indices focused on accuracy, bias, and precision were cataloged by speed, wear location, and age group to serve as important reference points when selecting and/or evaluating device performance in young people moving forward. Reduced performance can be expected at very slow walking speeds (0.8 to 3.2 km/h) for all devices. Ankle-worn and thigh-worn devices demonstrated the highest accuracy. Speed and wear location had a significant effect on accuracy and bias, but not precision.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT01989104 . Registered November 14, 2013.

Project description:BackgroundStandardized validation indices (i.e., accuracy, bias, and precision) provide a comprehensive comparison of step counting wearable technologies.PurposeTo expand a previously published child/youth catalog of validity indices to include adults (21-40, 41-60 and 61-85 years of age) assessed across a range of treadmill speeds (slow [0.8-3.2 km/h], normal [4.0-6.4 km/h], fast [7.2-8.0 km/h]) and device wear locations (ankle, thigh, waist, and wrist).MethodsTwo hundred fifty-eight adults (52.5 ± 18.7 years, 49.6% female) participated in this laboratory-based study and performed a series of 5-min treadmill bouts while wearing multiple devices; 21 devices in total were evaluated over the course of this multi-year cross-sectional study (2015-2019). The criterion measure was directly observed steps. Computed validity indices included accuracy (mean absolute percentage error, MAPE), bias (mean percentage error, MPE), and precision (correlation coefficient, r; standard deviation, SD; coefficient of variation, CoV).ResultsOver the range of normal speeds, 15 devices (Actical, waist-worn ActiGraph GT9X, activPAL, Apple Watch Series 1, Fitbit Ionic, Fitbit One, Fitbit Zip, Garmin vivoactive 3, Garmin vivofit 3, waist-worn GENEActiv, NL-1000, PiezoRx, Samsung Gear Fit2, Samsung Gear Fit2 Pro, and StepWatch) performed at < 5% MAPE. The wrist-worn ActiGraph GT9X displayed the worst accuracy across normal speeds (MAPE = 52%). On average, accuracy was compromised across slow walking speeds for all wearable technologies (MAPE = 40%) while all performed best across normal speeds (MAPE = 7%). When analyzing the data by wear locations, the ankle and thigh demonstrated the best accuracy (both MAPE = 1%), followed by the waist (3%) and the wrist (15%) across normal speeds. There were significant effects of speed, wear location, and age group on accuracy and bias (both p < 0.001) and precision (p ≤ 0.045).ConclusionsStandardized validation indices cataloged by speed, wear location, and age group across the adult lifespan facilitate selecting, evaluating, or comparing performance of step counting wearable technologies. Speed, wear location, and age displayed a significant effect on accuracy, bias, and precision. Overall, reduced performance was associated with very slow walking speeds (0.8 to 3.2 km/h). Ankle- and thigh-located devices logged the highest accuracy, while those located at the wrist reported the worst accuracy.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT02650258. Registered 24 December 2015.

Dataset Information

A Graphical Catalog of Threats to Validity: Linking Social Science with Epidemiology.

Publications

A Graphical Catalog of Threats to Validity: Linking Social Science with Epidemiology.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets