Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Control variable

A control variable is a factor in scientific experiments or statistical models that researchers deliberately hold constant or account for to isolate the causal effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable, minimizing the influence of extraneous factors on the results.^[1] In experimental design, control variables—also known as constants—are elements kept unchanged across all groups or conditions to ensure that observed differences in outcomes can be attributed solely to the manipulated independent variable, thereby enhancing the validity and reliability of the findings.^[2] For instance, in a study examining the impact of fertilizer on plant growth, variables such as soil type, sunlight exposure, and watering frequency might be controlled to prevent them from confounding the results.^[3] In statistical analysis, particularly in regression models, control variables refer to covariates included in the equation to adjust for their potential effects on the dependent variable, allowing for a more precise estimation of the relationship between the primary predictors and the outcome.^[4] These variables are typically not the main focus of the study but are essential for addressing confounding, omitted variable bias, or spurious correlations; for example, in econometric research analyzing the effect of education on income, age and location might serve as control variables to account for demographic influences.^[5] The proper selection and handling of control variables are critical, as including "bad controls"—such as post-treatment variables or mediators—can introduce bias by opening spurious causal paths or overcontrolling for effects, whereas "good controls" like pre-treatment confounders help block back-door paths and reduce estimation errors.^[5] Methods for controlling variables include randomization, matching, restriction in experiments, and inclusion in multivariate regressions, with the choice depending on the research context and data availability.^[6]

Fundamentals

Definition

A control variable, also known as a controlled variable or constant, is any factor in a scientific experiment that is deliberately held constant to prevent it from influencing the outcome, thereby allowing researchers to isolate the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable.^[7] This approach ensures that observed changes in the dependent variable can be confidently attributed to manipulations of the independent variable rather than extraneous influences.^[8] In the context of the scientific method, control variables are integral to the triad of variables used in hypothesis testing: the independent variable, which is systematically varied by the experimenter; the dependent variable, which is the measured response or outcome; and control variables, which are fixed to maintain experimental consistency. By minimizing variability from uncontrolled elements, these variables enhance the precision and reliability of results, making it possible to draw valid causal inferences.^[9] The use of control variables is fundamental to designing fair tests, as it reduces the risk of alternative explanations for experimental findings and supports the reproducibility of scientific observations.^[10] This practice also aids in preventing bias by eliminating confounding factors that could otherwise skew interpretations of the data.^[8]

Purpose and Importance

Control variables serve the primary purpose of eliminating omitted-variable bias in scientific investigations, allowing researchers to isolate the causal relationships between the independent variable and the dependent variable by holding other potentially influential factors constant.^[11]^[5] By maintaining these variables at a fixed level, experiments can attribute observed effects more accurately to the manipulated independent variable rather than to extraneous influences that might otherwise distort the results.^[12] This approach is essential in both experimental and observational settings, where failing to account for relevant confounders could lead to erroneous conclusions about causality.^[13] The importance of control variables is particularly evident in their role in safeguarding internal validity, as uncontrolled variables often introduce confounding effects that obscure the true relationship under study.^[14] Confounding occurs when an extraneous variable correlates with both the independent and dependent variables, creating spurious associations or masking genuine ones, which can result in skewed interpretations of data and invalid generalizations.^[15] For instance, in a study examining the impact of a new fertilizer on plant growth, temperature variations could confound results unless controlled, ensuring that any growth differences are attributable solely to the fertilizer. Without such controls, the experiment's conclusions lack credibility, undermining the reliability of the findings.^[16] On a broader scale, control variables contribute significantly to the replicability of experiments and the accumulation of reliable scientific knowledge across disciplines.^[14] By minimizing sources of variability unrelated to the hypothesis, they enable consistent outcomes when studies are repeated under similar conditions, fostering trust in empirical evidence and facilitating cumulative progress in understanding complex phenomena.^[16] This foundational practice supports the scientific method's emphasis on precision and verifiability, ultimately advancing fields from biology to social sciences by reducing the risk of irreproducible results.^[13]

Classifications

Good vs. Bad Control Variables

In causal inference and statistical modeling, control variables are classified as "good" or "bad" based on their ability to reduce or exacerbate bias in estimating treatment effects. Good control variables are those that block non-causal paths between the treatment (independent variable) and the outcome (dependent variable), thereby eliminating confounding bias without introducing new distortions. These variables typically represent pre-existing confounders that affect both the treatment assignment and the outcome but are unaffected by the treatment itself. For instance, in a study examining the effect of a new educational program (treatment) on student test scores (outcome), age can serve as a good control variable if it influences both program enrollment and scores independently of the program, allowing researchers to isolate the program's true impact.^[5]^[3] Conversely, bad control variables are those that, when included, open spurious associations or block relevant causal paths, often introducing collider bias or overcontrol bias. Collider bias arises when conditioning on a variable that is a common effect of both the treatment and outcome (or their causes), which creates a non-causal path that induces dependence between the treatment and outcome. A classic example is in a study of the effect of military service (treatment) on civilian wages (outcome); controlling for marital status post-service could be a bad control if marital status is influenced by both service and wages, leading to biased estimates by conditioning on a collider. Such controls are problematic because they are downstream of the treatment, violating principles of causal identification.^[5] The primary criteria for distinguishing good from bad control variables revolve around temporal independence and relevance to confounding structures. A variable qualifies as a good control if it is unaffected by the treatment (i.e., measured pre-treatment) and sufficiently blocks all back-door paths from confounders to the outcome, as per the back-door criterion in causal graphs. Relevance ensures it addresses actual sources of omitted variable bias without mediating the treatment effect. In contrast, bad controls fail these criteria by being post-treatment outcomes, mediators, or colliders, which can amplify bias rather than mitigate it. Researchers should use directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) to visualize these relationships and select controls accordingly, ensuring estimates approximate the causal effect.^[5] Control variables differ from confounding variables in their role and management within experimental or observational studies. Control variables are extraneous factors that researchers deliberately hold constant to isolate the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable, thereby enhancing the internal validity of the study. In contrast, confounding variables are uncontrolled extraneous factors that systematically covary with the independent variable and influence the dependent variable, potentially leading to spurious associations or biased estimates of causal effects. For instance, in a study examining the impact of a new fertilizer on plant growth, soil pH might be controlled by fixing it at a standard level, whereas an uncontrolled temperature variation across plots could act as a confounder if it correlates with fertilizer application and affects growth independently. To mitigate confounding, researchers often identify potential confounders and either hold them constant as control variables or use techniques like randomization to break their association with the independent variable.^[17]^[18]^[19] Another key distinction exists between control variables and constants in scientific investigations. Constants represent fixed, unchanging elements inherent to the experimental context or natural laws, such as the speed of light in a vacuum or the standard atmospheric pressure at sea level, which remain invariant regardless of the study's design. Control variables, however, are mutable factors that possess the potential to vary but are intentionally standardized or fixed by the experimenter to eliminate their influence on the outcome. For example, in testing the effect of light intensity on photosynthesis, the carbon dioxide concentration might serve as a control variable if held constant at 0.04%, even though it could fluctuate in other scenarios; in contrast, the universal gas constant would be a true constant. This deliberate manipulation underscores that control variables are active components of experimental control, whereas constants provide a stable backdrop without intervention.^[20]^[21] Control variables should also be differentiated from the broader notion of a controlled experiment. A controlled experiment encompasses the entire methodological framework designed to minimize extraneous influences and establish causal relationships, typically involving manipulation of the independent variable, measurement of the dependent variable, and the use of control groups or conditions for comparison. Control variables constitute specific tools within this framework, namely the factors held constant to prevent confounding or alternative explanations for observed effects. While the presence of control variables is essential for conducting a controlled experiment, the latter term refers to the holistic design strategy rather than individual variables; for instance, random assignment in clinical trials represents a controlled experiment that may incorporate multiple control variables like dosage timing. This separation highlights that control variables support but do not define the experimental paradigm.^[18]^[17]

Applications

In Experimental Design

In experimental design, control variables are integrated into the setup by first identifying potential extraneous factors that could influence the dependent variable independently of the independent variable. Researchers typically begin by reviewing relevant literature and conducting preliminary observations or pilot studies to pinpoint these variables, such as environmental conditions, participant characteristics, or procedural elements that might introduce variability. Once identified, standardization occurs by holding these variables constant across all experimental conditions—for instance, maintaining identical temperature, lighting, or timing for every trial—or by employing control groups that receive the same setup as the experimental group but without the independent variable manipulation. This process ensures that any systematic differences in outcomes can be reliably linked to the independent variable rather than uncontrolled influences.^[22] Control groups play a central role in this integration, serving as a baseline to isolate the effects of the independent variable. In a typical setup, subjects are divided into an experimental group exposed to the independent variable and one or more control groups that experience all other conditions identically but lack the manipulation. This allows researchers to compare outcomes directly, confirming that observed changes in the dependent variable stem from the intended intervention. For hypothesis testing, controlling these variables enhances internal validity by minimizing alternative explanations, thereby strengthening causal inferences about whether the independent variable causes the predicted effect on the dependent variable.^[22] Practical techniques for maintaining constancy of control variables include randomization, blocking, and matching, each addressing different sources of potential bias. Randomization involves randomly assigning subjects to experimental or control groups, which balances the distribution of both known and unknown control variables across groups, thereby preventing systematic confounding. Blocking refines this by first stratifying subjects into homogeneous blocks based on a key control variable (e.g., age or prior experience) and then randomizing assignments within each block, which increases precision by accounting for predictable variation. Matching entails pairing subjects with similar values on control variables and assigning one from each pair to different groups, though it is often used adjunctively to randomization rather than as a standalone method to avoid selection biases. These techniques collectively ensure that control variables do not systematically affect results, supporting robust hypothesis evaluation.^[22]^[23]^[24]

In Statistical Modeling

In statistical modeling, control variables are incorporated as covariates in regression analyses to isolate the effect of the primary independent variable on the dependent variable by accounting for potential confounding influences. The standard multiple linear regression model includes these controls as follows:

Y_i = \beta_0 + \beta_1 X_i + \beta_2 C_i + \epsilon_i

where Y_i is the dependent variable, X_i is the independent variable of interest, C_i represents the control variable (or a vector of controls), \beta_1 captures the adjusted effect of X_i, and \epsilon_i is the error term.^[25] This specification assumes that controls are exogenous and help satisfy the exogeneity condition for unbiased estimation of \beta_1.^[26] Excluding a relevant control variable that is correlated with both the independent variable and the dependent variable leads to omitted variable bias (OVB), which distorts the estimated coefficient on the independent variable. Consider the true model:

y = \beta_0 + \beta_1 x_1 + \beta_2 x_2 + u

where x_2 is the omitted control variable, satisfying the multiple linear regression (MLR) assumptions MLR.1–MLR.4. The misspecified model, omitting x_2, is:

\tilde{y} = \tilde{\beta}_0 + \tilde{\beta}_1 x_1 + \tilde{u}

The OLS estimator \tilde{\beta}_1 from the misspecified model is biased, with the expected value given by:

E(\tilde{\beta}_1) = \beta_1 + \beta_2 \tilde{\delta}

where \tilde{\delta} is the population slope coefficient from the auxiliary regression of the omitted variable x_2 on x_1:

x_2 = \tilde{\gamma}_0 + \tilde{\delta} x_1 + v

To derive this, substitute the true model into the misspecified form: \tilde{u} = \beta_2 x_2 + u. Then, \tilde{\beta}_1 = \beta_1 + \beta_2 \tilde{\delta} + (term involving v that has expectation zero under MLR assumptions). Thus, the bias is \beta_2 \tilde{\delta}, which equals zero only if \beta_2 = 0 (the omitted variable has no effect on y) or \tilde{\delta} = 0 (no correlation between x_1 and x_2).^[27] In practice, this bias can lead to over- or underestimation of \beta_1, depending on the signs of \beta_2 and \tilde{\delta}.^[28] When specifying models with multiple control variables, multicollinearity must be considered, as high correlations among controls or between controls and the independent variable can inflate the variance of coefficient estimates and reduce their precision. Multicollinearity arises when two or more predictors are moderately or highly correlated (e.g., correlation coefficient |r| > 0.8), often in observational data where controls like age and income naturally covary.^[29] This interaction complicates model specification by making individual coefficients unstable—small changes in data or included variables can cause large swings in estimates—and may lead to insignificant t-tests for coefficients even if the overall model fits well (high R^2).^[30] Detection typically involves variance inflation factors (VIF), where VIF > 5 for a control signals problematic multicollinearity; remedies include removing redundant controls or using ridge regression to shrink coefficients.^[29] While multicollinearity does not bias point estimates, it undermines reliable inference on how controls adjust the effect of the independent variable.^[30]

Examples

Physical Sciences

In physics and chemistry experiments, control variables are essential for isolating specific relationships between physical quantities. A classic example is the study of gas behavior under the ideal gas law, expressed as PV = nRT, where P is pressure, V is volume, n is the number of moles, R is the gas constant, and T is temperature. To derive Boyle's law, which describes the inverse relationship between pressure and volume for a fixed amount of gas, experimenters maintain constant temperature (T) and number of moles (n), treating them as control variables.^[31] Starting from the ideal gas equation, with n and T fixed, it simplifies to PV = k, where k = nRT is a constant. Rearranging gives P = \frac{k}{V}, demonstrating that pressure is inversely proportional to volume (P \propto \frac{1}{V}). This controlled approach, originally explored by Robert Boyle in 1662, allows precise measurement of the P-V relationship while eliminating confounding effects from thermal expansion or changes in gas quantity. Another fundamental application appears in the simple pendulum experiment, used to investigate the factors affecting oscillatory motion. Here, the mass of the bob and the amplitude of swing (kept small for the small-angle approximation) serve as control variables to isolate the influence of length L on the period T, revealing gravity's role via the formula T = 2\pi \sqrt{\frac{L}{g}}, where g is the acceleration due to gravity. By fixing mass (which does not affect T for ideal conditions) and ensuring small displacements to validate the harmonic approximation, experimenters vary only L and measure T, revealing the relationship. This method underscores how controlling extraneous factors clarifies the direct dependence of period on length and gravity.^[32] The strategic use of control variables in 17th-century physics was pivotal in establishing inverse square laws, such as those governing gravitational and centripetal forces. Isaac Newton, in his 1687 Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, analyzed astronomical data from planetary and satellite orbits to demonstrate that the force decreases with the square of the distance, aligning Kepler's empirical laws with theoretical predictions. This methodical isolation of distance as the varying factor amid controlled orbital parameters marked a foundational shift toward quantitative, evidence-based natural philosophy.^[33] In biological research, particularly clinical drug trials, control variables are essential for isolating the effects of a treatment on outcomes like blood pressure. For instance, in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT), researchers tested the efficacy of intensive versus standard blood pressure control by standardizing medication dosages across treatment arms—averaging 2.8 drugs in the intensive group targeting systolic blood pressure below 120 mm Hg and 1.8 drugs in the standard group targeting below 140 mm Hg—while adjusting doses monthly based on automated measurements to minimize variability unrelated to the intervention. Patient age was controlled through randomization and subgroup analyses, with participants aged 50 years or older (mean 68 years) stratified by baseline characteristics to account for age-related differences in response, ensuring that observed reductions in cardiovascular events (25% lower in the intensive group) could be attributed to the blood pressure targets rather than demographic confounders.^[34] In social sciences, control variables help parse the influence of group dynamics from individual or background factors in behavioral studies. A notable example is research on conformity using Solomon Asch's line judgment task, where participants identify matching line lengths amid group pressure from confederates. In a 2023 replication and extension of Asch's experiment, researchers standardized participant groups by recruiting only university students (mean age 22.6 years, 61% female), creating a homogeneous sample; this allowed isolation of social influence effects, yielding conformity rates of approximately 33% across conditions without incentives skewing results. Such standardization in group composition ensures that conformity—manifesting as participants aligning with incorrect majority judgments in 37% of trials in the original Asch study—stems from normative pressure.^[35]^[36] Biological and social sciences present unique challenges in fully controlling variables due to the inherent complexity of living systems, where factors like genetic variability introduce non-deterministic elements that are difficult to manipulate. Practical limitations arise from the vast genetic diversity within populations, making uniform cohorts challenging to assemble without introducing selection bias; for example, inherent genetic variations in animal models can only be partially addressed through uniform breeding or randomization, yet residual heterogeneity often persists, complicating causal inferences in studies of disease susceptibility or behavioral traits. These issues underscore the reliance on proxy controls, such as statistical adjustments or stratified sampling, to approximate isolation of effects in multifaceted environments.^[37]

Advanced Considerations

Historical Development

The concept of control variables emerged in the 17th century amid the rise of empiricism, with Francis Bacon advocating for systematic controlled comparisons to uncover natural laws. In his De Augmentis Scientiarum (1623), Bacon emphasized constraining nature through artificial means to isolate causes, describing experiments as putting nature "in constraint, molded, and made as it were new by art and the hand of man," thereby enabling repeatable observations free from extraneous influences.^[38] This approach laid the groundwork for distinguishing variables in empirical inquiry, shifting from speculative philosophy to methodical testing.^[38] Key advancements occurred in the early 20th century through Ronald A. Fisher's work on experimental design, particularly in agriculture. In the 1920s, while at Rothamsted Experimental Station, Fisher developed randomized block designs to control for soil variability and other nuisance factors, formalizing the use of blocking as a mechanism to reduce error by grouping similar experimental units.^[39] His seminal book Statistical Methods for Research Workers (1925) and later The Design of Experiments (1935) integrated randomization, replication, and blocking, establishing control variables as essential for valid inference in designed experiments.^[40] Post-World War II, the concept evolved significantly within statistical frameworks to address biases in observational data, where randomization was infeasible. In the 1950s and 1960s, methods like stratification and the Mantel-Haenszel procedure enabled control for confounders by adjusting associations across subgroups, as seen in epidemiological studies on smoking and lung cancer.^[41] By the 1970s, matching and multivariate regression gained prominence for summarizing and adjusting confounder effects, with figures like Olli S. Miettinen advancing confounder scores in case-control designs to mitigate selection biases.^[42] This integration transformed control variables into a cornerstone of causal inference in non-experimental settings across epidemiology and social sciences.^[41]

Common Pitfalls and Best Practices

One common pitfall in the use of control variables is over-controlling, which occurs when researchers adjust for variables that lie on the causal pathway between the treatment and outcome or serve as colliders, leading to collider bias that distorts associations.^[43] In epidemiology, for instance, conditioning on a post-treatment variable like hospitalization status can induce spurious relationships by opening a backdoor path through the collider.^[44] This bias arises because colliders represent common effects of the exposure and outcome, and controlling for them creates non-causal associations that were absent in the unadjusted model.^[43] Conversely, under-controlling introduces omitted variable bias when relevant confounders are excluded, inflating or deflating the estimated effect of the primary variable and threatening causal inference.^[45] This error is particularly problematic in observational data, where unmeasured factors correlated with both the predictor and outcome can confound results, leading to invalid conclusions about relationships.^[45] Distinguishing good controls (pre-treatment confounders) from bad ones (intermediaries or colliders) is essential to avoid these issues, though misidentification remains frequent.^[46] To mitigate these pitfalls, researchers should prioritize theory-driven selection of control variables, grounding choices in substantive knowledge of causal mechanisms rather than data-driven or ad hoc inclusions.^[46] This approach ensures controls address genuine confounding while avoiding unnecessary adjustments that could introduce bias.^[47] Additionally, employing sensitivity analyses enhances robustness by systematically varying assumptions about unmeasured confounders or model specifications to assess how results hold under plausible alternatives.^[48] In field experiments, where real-world complexities amplify risks, iterative refinement of control variables—through pilot testing and sequential adjustments based on emerging data—helps refine variable sets for better balance and reduced bias.^[49] Researchers can further operationalize this by using structured checklists to identify controls, such as verifying theoretical relevance, checking for causal positioning via directed acyclic graphs, and evaluating potential multicollinearity before inclusion.^[50] These practices promote transparent reporting and reproducible analyses, ultimately strengthening the validity of findings.^[50]

References

[1]
Types of Variables, Descriptive Statistics, and Sample Size - PMC
A control variable is a variable that must be kept constant during the course of an experiment. Descriptive Statistics. Statistics can be broadly divided into ...
[2]
Control Variables: Definition, Uses & Examples - Statistics By Jim
Control variables are properties that researchers hold constant for all observations in experiments. They help establish the true effects.
[3]
Control Variables | What Are They & Why Do They Matter? - Scribbr
Mar 1, 2021 · A control variable is anything that is held constant or limited in a research study. It's a variable that is not of interest to the study's objectives.Why do control variables matter? · How do you control a variable?
[4]
Control and Moderation – It's Easy When You Understand
Control variables are variables that you are not particularly interested in, but they can have a material effect on your dependent variable.
[5]
[PDF] A Crash Course in Good and Bad Controls - UCLA
Mar 21, 2022 · Here, “good controls” are defined as variables that are thought to be unaffected by the treatment, whereas “bad controls” are variables that ...
[6]
How to control confounding effects by statistical analysis - PMC - NIH
There are various ways to exclude or control confounding variables including Randomization, Restriction and Matching.
[7]
controlled variable - Understanding Science
In scientific testing, a variable that is kept constant so that the impact of another factor can be better understood.Missing: method | Show results with:method
[8]
Controlled experiments (article) - Khan Academy
A controlled experiment is a scientific test done under controlled conditions, meaning that just one (or a few) factors are changed at a time, while all others ...
[9]
Independent and Dependent Variables - Scientific Method - Ranger ...
Aug 16, 2021 · In an experiment, the independent variable is the variable that is varied or manipulated by the researcher. The dependent variable is the response that is ...
[10]
Independent vs. Dependent Variables | Definition & Examples
Feb 3, 2022 · An independent variable is the cause while a dependent variable is the effect in a causal research study.Types of independent variables · Independent and dependent...
[11]
https://www.reed.edu/economics/parker/311/sw-ch-9.pdf
[12]
[PDF] Assessing Studies Based on Multiple Regression - Reed College
These steps are summarized in Key Concept 9.2. Solutions to omitted variable bias when adequate control variables are not available. Adding an omitted ...
[13]
[PDF] 1.1 What Is Science? - Lesson Overview
It is important to control variables because if several variables are changed in the experiment, researchers can't easily tell which variable is responsible for ...
[14]
Sociology Honors seminar - Notes: Control Variables - Nyu
They match the variables available in the data they use with implicit lists of variables often used as controls in sociological research.Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
[15]
[PDF] Chapter 8 Threats to Your Experiment - Statistics & Data Science
confounding and confounding is a fatal threat to internal validity. Notice ... Continuous control variables are also called covari- ates. Page 19. 8.6 ...
[16]
5.1 Experiment Basics – Research Methods in Psychology
In principle, researchers can control extraneous variables by limiting participants to one very specific category of person, such as 20-year-old, heterosexual, ...
[17]
Practices of Science: Variables - University of Hawaii at Manoa
Scientists use systems of variables and controls in experiments so that they can gather the most accurate data possible.
[18]
Unveiling the Science Behind: What Controlling Variables Mean in ...
In conclusion, controlling variables is a fundamental aspect of scientific experimentation, enabling researchers to establish cause-and-effect relationships and ...
[19]
Conducting Experiments (2 of 2) – Concepts in Statistics
Two commonly used methods for controlling the effects of confounding variables are direct control and random assignment. Random assignment uses random chance to ...
[20]
[PDF] Variables & Controls - MIT OpenCourseWare
Control: any means used to rule out threats to the validity of a research. • Research often involves the use of a group of subjects who do not experience ...
[21]
1.4.1 - Confounding Variables | STAT 200
These are known as confounding variables. A confounding variable is related to both the explanatory variable and the response variable.
[22]
Experimental Design | NC Science Olympiad
– A constant is unchanging. A controlled variable could serve as an independent variable in a different experiment but you are keeping it the same throughout ...
[23]
Experimental Design: Glossary - CSUN
Constant - The factors that do not change during the experiment. Control - The control is the group that serves as a standard of comparison. It is exposed to ...Missing: statistics | Show results with:statistics
[24]
[PDF] EXPERIMENTAL AND QUASI-EXPERIMENT Al DESIGNS FOR ...
In this chapter we shall examine the validity of 16 experimental designs against 12 com mon threats to valid inference. By experi.<|control11|><|separator|>
[25]
5.2 Experimental Design – Research Methods in Psychology
This matching is a matter of controlling these extraneous participant variables across conditions so that they do not become confounding variables. Random ...
[26]
Experiments
In this design, they first group individuals into blocks based on the identified variable and then randomize subjects within each block to the treatment groups.
[27]
[PDF] Introductory Econometrics
The most common application of econometrics is the forecasting of such important macroeconomic variables as interest rates, inflation rates, and gross domestic ...
[28]
[PDF] Linear Regression with Many Controls of Limited Explanatory Power
A classic issue that arises frequently in applied econometrics is how to deal with a poten- tially large number of control variables in a linear regression.
[29]
[PDF] Omitted Variable Bias: The Simple Case
Deriving the bias caused by omitting an important variable is an example of ... the above equation (β2. ˜ δ) is often called the omitted variable bias ...
[30]
None
### Summary of Omitted Variable Bias from http://econweb.umd.edu/~chao/Teaching/Econ422/Linear%20Regression%203.pdf
[31]
10.4 - Multicollinearity | STAT 462
Multicollinearity exists when two or more of the predictors in a regression model are moderately or highly correlated with one another.
[32]
Multicollinearity in Regression Analysis: Problems, Detection, and ...
Multicollinearity is when independent variables in a regression model are correlated. I explore its problems, testing your model for it, and solutions.
[33]
[PDF] Controlling Variables: The Period of a Pendulum - MiraCosta College
The experiment aims to determine which variables affect a pendulum's period, like weight, by controlling them and testing hypotheses.
[34]
Isaac Newton's Scientific Method: Turning Data into Evidence about ...
Sep 8, 2013 · This establishes that the forces keeping the moons of Jupiter and, at least to approximation, the planets in their orbits are inverse square ...Missing: physics | Show results with:physics
[35]
A Randomized Trial of Intensive versus Standard Blood-Pressure ...
Nov 9, 2015 · Clinical trials have shown that treatment of hypertension reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease outcomes, including incident stroke (by 35 ...
[36]
The power of social influence: A replication and extension of ... - NIH
Nov 29, 2023 · In this paper, we pursue four goals: First, we replicate the original Asch experiment with five confederates and one naïve subject in each group.
[37]
Asch Conformity Line Experiment - Simply Psychology
May 15, 2025 · Solomon Asch experimented with investigating the extent to which social pressure from a majority group could affect a person to conform.
[38]
Control of Variability | ILAR Journal - Oxford Academic
Variability can be controlled by randomization, grouping, uniform populations, and by addressing experimenter-introduced and inherent animal variations.
[39]
Ethical and Social Issues in Incorporating Genetic Research ... - NCBI
Four general categories of ethical and social issues in genetic research studies are considered, including privacy, access and ownership of genetic information ...
[40]
The Project Gutenberg eBook of Novum Organum, by Lord Bacon
For we must first prepare as a foundation for the whole, a complete and accurate natural and experimental history. ... controlled or wrought upon. The eddies ...
[41]
[PDF] “The Violence of Impediments”: Francis Bacon and the Origins of ...
Feb 3, 2017 · Against this background, Bacon's concept of the contained, controlled experiment arose out of three influences: the juridical tradition, the ...
[42]
Fisher, Bradford Hill, and randomization - Oxford Academic
In the 1920s RA Fisher presented randomization as an essential ingredient of his approach to the design and analysis of experiments, validating significanc.
[43]
R.A. Fisher and his advocacy of randomization - ResearchGate
Aug 6, 2025 · The requirement of randomization in experimental design was first stated by R. A. Fisher, statistician and geneticist, in 1925 in his book ...
[44]
[PDF] Standardization and Control for Confounding in Observational Studies
Abstract. Control for confounders in observational studies was gener- ally handled through stratification and standardization until the 1960s.
[45]
[PDF] The history of confounding
Confounding is a basic problem of comparability – and there- fore has always been present in science. Originally a plain Eng-.Missing: WWII | Show results with:WWII
[46]
Collider scope: when selection bias can substantially influence ... - NIH
Collider bias occurs when two variables (X and Y) independently cause a third variable (Z). In this situation Z is a collider, and statistical adjustment for Z ...
[47]
Omitted variable bias: A threat to estimating causal relationships
We aim to raise awareness of the omitted variable bias (i.e., one special form of endogeneity) and highlight its severity for causal claims.
[48]
The choice of control variables in empirical management research
We will first focus on “good” controls that can reduce estimation bias. Afterward, we will discuss “bad” controls, which lead to bias when used. The general ...
[49]
To Omit or to Include? Integrating the Frugal and Prolific ...
Dec 21, 2023 · A control variable is endogenous or bad if it depends on an independent variable of interest, the dependent variable, or shares an unobserved ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[50]
A tutorial on sensitivity analyses in clinical trials: the what, why ...
Jul 16, 2013 · Sensitivity analyses play a crucial role in assessing the robustness of the findings or conclusions based on primary analyses of data in clinical trials.
[51]
Variable selection – A review and recommendations for the ...
We provide an overview of various available variable selection methods that are based on significance or information criteria, penalized likelihood, the change ...
[52]
[PDF] Practice Recommendations for Control Variable Usage
The use of control variables plays a central role in organizational re- search due to practical difficulties associated with the implementation.