1. This is the last week for people in the UK to choose their ME/CFS research priorities. Make your choice here or discuss them here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 29th November 2021 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

Tutorial: The Practical Application of Longitudinal Structural Equation Mediation Models in Clinical Trials (2017) Chalder et al

Discussion in 'PsychoSocial ME/CFS News' started by hixxy, Dec 29, 2017.

Tags:
  1. hixxy

    hixxy Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    119
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29283590
    http://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2017-57776-001.pdf
     
    hixxy, Dec 29, 2017
    #1
    Woolie, Andy, Cheshire and 5 others like this.
  2. Adrian

    Adrian Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    5,764
    Location:
    UK
    Oh dear I think they should stay away from stats. From what I remember with the PACE mediation model they failed to model important temporal aspects. Also I seem to remember that the scales they use broke the basic assumptions of the methods.

    But mediation models as whole seem to be a bad idea trying to replace complex methods and corrections with trying to use the stats to gain an understanding of the basic system. David Freedman wrote a good article "statistics and shoe leather" with the point being:
    https://web.math.rochester.edu/people/faculty/cmlr/Advice-Files/Freedman-Shoe-Leather.pdf
    "Statistical techniques can seldom be an adequate substitute for good design, relevant data, and testing predictions against reality in a variety of situations"

    It seems like they use mediation analysis to cover for having an untestable hypothesis and bad data (subjective measures in a trial aimed at changing subjective feelings of symptoms).

    Still I may have a read as I was thinking of looking at mediation analysis for a data prediction problem.
     
    Adrian, Dec 29, 2017
    #2
    Woolie, Andy, Trish and 8 others like this.
  3. Simone

    Simone Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    402
    Location:
    Australia
    And now they want to teach other researchers how to do the same! :banghead:
     
    Simone, Dec 30, 2017
    #3
    Valentijn, Andy, Invisible Woman and 4 others like this.
  4. Obermann

    Obermann Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    112
    Location:
    Stockholm
    For crying out loud. Is the PACE team going to teach us about Structural Equation Models? Embarrassing. Their analysis uses subjective outcomes and excludes all biomedical factors. Talk about begging the biopsychosocial question.

    Any expert in the field could explain for Goldsmith et al. that you cannot prove causality from SEMs. They can be used to test causal models and they can be used for exploratory analysis, but statistical methods alone cannot determine the direction of causality. Moreover, any SEM depends on the assumption that you have included all relevant factors. The causal inference from SEMs is only as strong as the underlying theoretical support for the model and for the choice of causal factors. Temporal analysis can in some cases resolve direction of causality, but can never solve the problem of relevant factors.

    I think that the PACE team should contemplate the meaning of scientific models, in particular the difference between causal models and black box correlational models.
     
    Obermann, Dec 30, 2017
    #4
    Woolie, Skycloud, Valentijn and 9 others like this.
  5. TiredSam

    TiredSam Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    9,846
    Location:
    Germany
    Oh look, three of my favourite authors trying to establish their credentials as statisticians. What could possibly go wrong?
     
    TiredSam, Dec 30, 2017
    #5
    sea, Joh, Solstice and 10 others like this.
  6. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    10,395
    How long can these people go on making idiots of themselves?
     
    Jonathan Edwards, Dec 30, 2017
    #6
    Atle, sea, Joh and 10 others like this.
  7. Barry

    Barry Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    8,023
    Probably their own special kind of stats, explaining how to understand causal relationships that don't exist.
     
    Barry, Dec 30, 2017
    #7
    Cheshire, Solstice, Valentijn and 5 others like this.
  8. Barry

    Barry Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    8,023
    You clearly enjoy fiction then.
     
    Barry, Dec 30, 2017
    #8
    sea, Valentijn, Trish and 3 others like this.
  9. Barry

    Barry Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    8,023
    Lifetime achievement?
     
    Barry, Dec 30, 2017
    #9
    Trish likes this.
  10. Amw66

    Amw66 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,893
    For as long as they can get away with it
     
    Amw66, Dec 30, 2017
    #10
    EzzieD, Solstice, Barry and 2 others like this.
  11. Obermann

    Obermann Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    112
    Location:
    Stockholm
    Suggested alternative title:

    Tutorial: The Practical Guide How to Create a (Bio)psychosocial Pseudomodel for an Illness of Arbitrary Etiology
     
    Obermann, Dec 31, 2017
    #11
    Woolie and Trish like this.
  12. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,562
    Location:
    UK
    I suspect the statistician on the PACE team needed another publication for his portfolio, or a project for a post grad student to take on, and they invented this stuff using a simulation of PACE as a pseudo data set to try it out on.

    And because they used PACE it will get more readers and therefore greater kudos than any old made up data set, and can attach the names of the PACE team to the author list to add weight and make their number games look 'useful'.
     
    Trish, Dec 31, 2017
    #12
    Woolie, Valentijn, Skycloud and 3 others like this.

Share This Page