Search results

Experiments offer more reliable evidence on causation than observational studies, which is not to gainsay the contribution to knowledge from observation. Experiments should be analyzed as experiments, not as observational studies. A simple comparison of rates might be just the right tool, with little value added by "sophisticated" models. This article discusses current models for causation, as applied to experimental and observational data. The intention-totreat principle and the effect of treatment on the treated will also be discussed. Flaws in perprotocol and treatment-received estimates will be demonstrated.

This article (which is mainly expository) sets up graphical models for causation, having a bit less than the usual complement of hypothetical counterfactuals. Assuming the invariance of error distributions may be essential for causal inference, but the errors themselves need not be invariant. Graphs can be interpreted using conditional distributions, so thatwe can better address connections between the mathematical framework and causality in the world. The identification problem is posed in terms of conditionals. As will be seen, causal relationships cannot be inferred from a data set by running regressions unless there is substantial prior knowledge about the mechanisms that generated the data. There are fewsuccessful applications of graphicalmodels, mainly because few causal pathways can be excluded on a priori grounds. The invariance conditions themselves remain to be assessed.