Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Family Violence 8/2019

01-11-2019 | Original Article

No Credibility without Plausibility: a Response to Lewis and Lanier

Author: Roderick A. Rose

Published in: Journal of Family Violence | Issue 8/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

In this commentary I respond to Lewis (2019) and Lanier (2019), building on their critiques and ideas, offering some additional thoughts about the dissemination of the Campbell, Rubin, and Pearl causal frameworks and their potential emergent value to the future of family violence research. I clarify that the central issue to credibility is the plausibility of assumptions, that some widely utilized methods often require researchers to make implausible assumptions, and that there is value to knowing and using all three frameworks.
Literature
go back to reference Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J. S. (2009). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist’s companion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRef Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J. S. (2009). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist’s companion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRef
go back to reference Austin, A. E., Desrosiers, T. A., & Shanahan, M. E. (2019). Directed acyclic graphs: An under-utilized tool for child maltreatment research. Child Abuse & Neglect, 91, 78–87.CrossRef Austin, A. E., Desrosiers, T. A., & Shanahan, M. E. (2019). Directed acyclic graphs: An under-utilized tool for child maltreatment research. Child Abuse & Neglect, 91, 78–87.CrossRef
go back to reference Barnighausen, T., Oldenburg, C., Tugwell, P., Bommer, C., Ebert, C., Barreto, M., et al. (2017). Quasi-experimental design series—Paper 7: Assessing the assumptions. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 89, 53–66.CrossRef Barnighausen, T., Oldenburg, C., Tugwell, P., Bommer, C., Ebert, C., Barreto, M., et al. (2017). Quasi-experimental design series—Paper 7: Assessing the assumptions. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 89, 53–66.CrossRef
go back to reference Guo, S., & Fraser, M. W. (2015). Propensity score analysis: Statistical methods and applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Guo, S., & Fraser, M. W. (2015). Propensity score analysis: Statistical methods and applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
go back to reference Lanier, P. (2019). Frameworks of causal inference for improving intervention, prediction, and imagination in family violence research: A commentary on Rose (2019). Journal of Family Violence. Lanier, P. (2019). Frameworks of causal inference for improving intervention, prediction, and imagination in family violence research: A commentary on Rose (2019). Journal of Family Violence.
go back to reference Lewis, M. E. (2019). TITLE: A commentary on Rose (2019). Journal of Family Violence. Lewis, M. E. (2019). TITLE: A commentary on Rose (2019). Journal of Family Violence.
go back to reference Morgan, S. L. & Winship, C. (2014). Counterfactuals and causal inference: Methods and principles for social research (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press. Morgan, S. L. & Winship, C. (2014). Counterfactuals and causal inference: Methods and principles for social research (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
go back to reference Pearl, J. (2009). Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Pearl, J. (2009). Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
go back to reference Pearl, J., & MacKenzie, D. (2018). The book of why: The new science of cause and effect. NY: Basic Books. Pearl, J., & MacKenzie, D. (2018). The book of why: The new science of cause and effect. NY: Basic Books.
go back to reference Rose, R. A. (2019). Frameworks for credible causal inference in observational studies of family violence. Journal of Family Violence. Rose, R. A. (2019). Frameworks for credible causal inference in observational studies of family violence. Journal of Family Violence.
go back to reference Shadish, W. R. (2010). Campbell and Rubin: A primer and comparison of their approaches to causal inference in field settings. Psychological Methods, 15(1), 3–17.CrossRef Shadish, W. R. (2010). Campbell and Rubin: A primer and comparison of their approaches to causal inference in field settings. Psychological Methods, 15(1), 3–17.CrossRef
go back to reference Stone, S. (2014). Comtemporary quantitative methods and “slow” causal inference: Response to Palinkas. Research on Social Work Practice, 24(5), 552–555.CrossRef Stone, S. (2014). Comtemporary quantitative methods and “slow” causal inference: Response to Palinkas. Research on Social Work Practice, 24(5), 552–555.CrossRef
go back to reference Thoemmes, F. F. J., & Kim, E. S. (2011). A systematic review of propensity score methods in the social sciences. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46(1), 90–118.CrossRef Thoemmes, F. F. J., & Kim, E. S. (2011). A systematic review of propensity score methods in the social sciences. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46(1), 90–118.CrossRef
go back to reference Vanderweele, T. (2015). Explanation in causal inference. NY: Oxford University Press. Vanderweele, T. (2015). Explanation in causal inference. NY: Oxford University Press.
Metadata
Title
No Credibility without Plausibility: a Response to Lewis and Lanier
Author
Roderick A. Rose
Publication date
01-11-2019
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Journal of Family Violence / Issue 8/2019
Print ISSN: 0885-7482
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2851
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-019-00080-0

Other articles of this Issue 8/2019

Journal of Family Violence 8/2019 Go to the issue