Bulbulia Joseph A
Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.
Evol Hum Sci. 2024 Oct 1;6:e42. doi: 10.1017/ehs.2024.33. eCollection 2024.
The human sciences should seek generalisations wherever possible. For ethical and scientific reasons, it is desirable to sample more broadly than 'Western, educated, industrialised, rich, and democratic' (WEIRD) societies. However, restricting the target population is sometimes necessary; for example, young children should not be recruited for studies on elderly care. Under which conditions is unrestricted sampling desirable or undesirable? Here, we use causal diagrams to clarify the structural features of measurement error bias and target population restriction bias (or 'selection restriction'), focusing on threats to valid causal inference that arise in comparative cultural research. We define any study exhibiting such biases, or confounding biases, as weird (wrongly estimated inferences owing to inappropriate restriction and distortion). We explain why statistical tests such as configural, metric and scalar invariance cannot address the structural biases of weird studies. Overall, we examine how the workflows for causal inference provide the necessary preflight checklists for ambitious, effective and safe comparative cultural research.
人文科学应尽可能寻求普遍性。出于伦理和科学原因,抽样范围应比“西方、受过教育、工业化、富裕和民主”(WEIRD)社会更广泛。然而,有时限制目标人群是必要的;例如,不应招募幼儿参与老年护理研究。在哪些情况下无限制抽样是可取的或不可取的?在此,我们使用因果图来阐明测量误差偏差和目标人群限制偏差(或“选择限制”)的结构特征,重点关注比较文化研究中出现的对有效因果推断的威胁。我们将任何表现出此类偏差或混杂偏差的研究定义为怪异的(由于不适当的限制和扭曲导致推断错误估计)。我们解释了为什么诸如构型、度量和标量不变性等统计检验无法解决怪异研究的结构偏差。总体而言,我们研究因果推断的工作流程如何为雄心勃勃、有效且安全的比较文化研究提供必要的预检清单。