BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Tyler J. VanderWeele

Tyler J. VanderWeele contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Methodologymath.STStatistics Theory

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 19 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
5works
0followers
3topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

5 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

A statistical test to reject the structural interpretation of a latent factor model

Factor analysis is often used to assess whether a single univariate latent variable is sufficient to explain most of the covariance among a set of indicators for some underlying construct. When evidence suggests that a single factor is adequate, research often proceeds by using a univariate summary of the indicators in subsequent research. Implicit in such practices is the assumption that it is the underlying latent, rather than the indicators, that is causally efficacious. The assumption that the indicators do not have effects on anything subsequent, and that they are themselves only affected by antecedents through the underlying latent is a strong assumption, effectively imposing a structural interpretation on the latent factor model. In this paper, we show that this structural assumption has empirically testable implications, even though the latent variable itself is unobserved. We develop a statistical test to potentially reject the structural interpretation of a latent factor model. We apply this test to data concerning associations between the Satisfaction-with-Life-Scale and subsequent all-cause mortality, which provides strong evidence against a structural interpretation for a univariate latent underlying the scale. Discussion is given to the implications of this result for the development, evaluation, and use of measures and for the use of factor analysis itself.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

On the dimensional indeterminacy of one-wave factor analysis under causal effects

It is shown, with two sets of indicators that separately load on two distinct factors, independent of one another conditional on the past, that if it is the case that at least one of the factors causally affects the other, then, in many settings, the process will converge to a factor model in which a single factor will suffice to capture the covariance structure among the indicators. Factor analysis with one wave of data can then not distinguish between factor models with a single factor versus those with two factors that are causally related. Therefore, unless causal relations between factors can be ruled out a priori, alleged empirical evidence from one-wave factor analysis for a single factor still leaves open the possibilities of a single factor or of two factors that causally affect one another. The implications for interpreting the factor structure of psychological scales, such as self-report scales for anxiety and depression, or for happiness and purpose, are discussed. The results are further illustrated through simulations to gain insight into the practical implications of the results in more realistic settings prior to the convergence of the processes. Some further generalizations to an arbitrary number of underlying factors are noted.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2021arXiv

Constructed measures and causal inference: towards a new model of measurement for psychosocial constructs

Psychosocial constructs can only be assessed indirectly, and measures are typically formed by a combination of indicators that are thought to relate to the construct. Reflective and formative measurement models offer different conceptualizations of the relation between the indicators and what is sometimes conceived of as a univariate latent variable supposed to correspond in some way to the construct. It is argued that the empirical implications of reflective and formative models will often be violated by data since the causally relevant constituents will generally be multivariate, not univariate. These empirical implications can be formally tested but factor analysis is not adequate to do so. It is argued that formative models misconstrue the relationship between the constructed measures and the underlying reality by which causal processes operate, but that reflective models misconstrue the nature of the underlying reality itself by typically presuming that the constituents of it that are causally efficacious are unidimensional. The ensuing problems arising from these misconstruals are discussed. A causal interpretation is proposed of associations between constructed measures and various outcomes that is applicable to both reflective and formative models and is applicable even if the usual assumptions of these models are violated. An outline for a new model of the process of measure construction is put forward. Discussion is given to the practical implications of these observations and proposals for the provision of definitions, the selection of items, item-by-item analyses, the construction of measures, and the interpretation of the associations of these measures with subsequent outcomes.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

On the identification of individual principal stratum direct, natural direct and pleiotropic effects without cross world independence assumptions

The analysis of natural direct and principal stratum direct effects has a controversial history in statistics and causal inference as these effects are commonly identified with either untestable cross world independence or graphical assumptions. This paper demonstrates that the presence of individual level natural direct and principal stratum direct effects can be identified without cross world independence assumptions. We also define a new type of causal effect, called pleiotropy, that is of interest in genomics, and provide empirical conditions to detect such an effect as well. Our results are applicable for all types of distributions concerning the mediator and outcome.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Quantifying and Detecting Individual Level `Always Survivor' Causal Effects Under `Truncation by Death' and Censoring Through Time

The analysis of causal effects when the outcome of interest is possibly truncated by death has a long history in statistics and causal inference. The survivor average causal effect is commonly identified with more assumptions than those guaranteed by the design of a randomized clinical trial or using sensitivity analysis. This paper demonstrates that individual level causal effects in the `always survivor' principal stratum can be identified with no stronger identification assumptions than randomization. We illustrate the practical utility of our methods using data from a clinical trial on patients with prostate cancer. Our methodology is the first and, as of yet, only proposed procedure that enables detecting causal effects in the presence of truncation by death using only the assumptions that are guaranteed by design of the clinical trial. This methodology is applicable to all types of outcomes.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access