When one variable is studied to try to explain another, the relationship between them may be biased by a third variable. This bias, known as “confounding,” is common and must be minimized in research. This description is deceptively simple, though. Identifying confounding is complex but can be reduced to a stepped procedure. By way of examples, this article describes confounding and how to recognize it.
RothmanKJ. Modern epidemiology. Toronto: Little Brown and Company; 1986.
2.
KelseyJLWhittemoreASEvansASThompsonWD. Methods in observational epidemiology. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.
3.
SchlesselmanJJ. Case-control studies: Design, conduct, analysis. New York: Oxford University Press; 1982.
4.
KleinbaumDGKupperLLMorgensternH. Epidemiologic research: Principles and quantitative methods. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold; 1982.
5.
MohideEAPringleDMStreinerDLGilbertJRMuirGTewM. A randomized trial of family caregiver support in the home management of dementia. J Am Geriatr Soc1990;38:446–54.
6.
BlandRC. Epidemiology of affective disorders: A review. Can J Psychiatry1997;42:367–77.
7.
LinEGoeringPOffordDRCampbellDBoyleMH. The use of mental health services in Ontario: Epidemiologic findings. Can J Psychiatry1996;41:572–7.
8.
StreinerDL. Regression in the service of the superego: The do's and don'ts of stepwise multiple regression. Can J Psychiatry1994;39:191–6.
9.
RadloffLLockeB. The community mental health assessment survey and the CES-D Scale. In: WeissmanMMyersJRossC, editors. Community surveys of psychiatric disorders. New Brunswick (NJ): Rutgers University Press; 1986. p 177–89.
10.
StreinerDL. Risky business: Making sense of estimates of risk. Can J Psychiatry1998;43:411–5.
11.
MoldonadoGGreenlandS. Simulation study of confounder-selection strategies. Am J Epidemiol1993;138:923–36.
12.
ElwoodJM. Causal relationships in medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1987.
