Hi On 28 Sep 2002, Donald Burrill wrote: > "Omitted" might be unexceptionable -- that's part of the definition of a > lurking variable, after all. But "confounding" is already VERY well > defined, and represents a different idea altogether. (In particular, a > confounding variable is already present and measured, unlike a lurking > variable; and it is in some considerable degree redundant with other > present variables (those with which it is confounded), again unlike a > lurking variable -- which, it is supposed, is not only not redundant but > represents something unmeasured and by extension probably not even > correlated with the variables presently in hand.)
My experience (in psychology) with confounding is different than Donald's. Confounding variables need not and often are not measured. Part of analyzing a study is identifying potential unmeasured confounding variables. Best wishes Jim ============================================================================ James M. Clark (204) 786-9757 Department of Psychology (204) 774-4134 Fax University of Winnipeg 4L05D Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 2E9 [EMAIL PROTECTED] CANADA http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/~clark ============================================================================ . . ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at: . http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ . =================================================================
