This article addresses the characterization and circumvention of Simpson's paradox in designs involving two ordered variables and illustrates the recommended procedure using a two-sample application involving the estimation of correlation and a single subject application involving the estimation of lag(1) autocorrelation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bishop, YM.M. , Fienberg, S. E., & Holland, P. W. (1975). Discrete multivariate analysis: Theory and practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2.
Blyth, C. R. (1972). On Simpson's paradox and the sure-thing principle. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 67, 364-366.
3.
Flexser, A. J. (1981). Homogenizing the 2 x 2 contingency table: A method for removing dependencies due to subject and item differences. Psychological Review, 88, 327-339.
4.
Flexser, A. J. , & Tulving, E. (1993). Recognition-failure constraints and the average maximum. Psychological Review, 100, 149-153.
5.
Glass, G. V. (1978). Integrating findings: The meta-analysis of research. Review of Research in Education, 5, 351-379.
6.
Hagenaars, J. A. (1990). Categorical longitudinal data: Log-linear, panel, trend, and cohort analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
7.
Hedges, L. V. , & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. New York: Academic Press.
8.
Hintzman, D. L. (1980). Simpson's paradox and the analysis of memory retrieval. Psychological Review, 87, 398-410.
9.
Kraemer, H. C. (1992). Evaluating medical tests: Objective and quantitative guidelines. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
10.
Lord, F. M. (1967). Aparadox in the interpretation of group comparisons. Psychological Bulletin, 68, 304-305.
11.
Martin, E. (1981). Simpson's paradox resolved: Areply to Hintzman. Psychological Review, 88, 372-374.
12.
McDowall, D. , McCleary, R., Meidinger, E. E., & Hay, R. A. (1980). Interrupted time series analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
13.
Ostrom, C. W. (1990). Time series analysis: Regression techniques (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
14.
Rosenthal, R. (1984). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
15.
Simpson, E. H. (1951). The interpretation of interaction in contingency tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 13, 238-241.
16.
Soltysik, R. C. , & Yarnold, P R. (1993). ODA 1.0: Optimal data analysis for DOS. Chicago: Optimal Data Analysis, Inc.
17.
Stalans, L. J. , & Finn, M. A. (1995). How novice and experienced officers interpret wife assaults: Normative and efficiency framing. Law and Society Review, 29, 301-335.
18.
Wainer, H. (1991). Adjusting for differential base rates: Lord's paradox again. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 147-151.
19.
Woolson, R. F. (1987). Statistical methods for the analysis of biomedical data. New York: John Wiley.
20.
Yamold, P. R. (1992). Statistical analysis for single-case designs. In F. B. Bryant, L. Heath, E. Posavac, J. Edwards, E. Henderson, Y. Suarez-Balcazar, & S. Tindale (Eds.), Social psychological applications to social issues. Volume 2: Methodological issues in applied social research (pp. 177-197). New York: Plenum.
21.
Yarnold, P. R. , Soltysik, R. C., & Martin, G. J. (1994). Heart rate variability and susceptibility for sudden cardiac death: An example of multivariable optimal discriminant analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 13, 1015-1021.
