Journal of Family Violence

, Volume 34, Issue 8, pp 719–722 | Cite as

No Credibility without Plausibility: a Response to Lewis and Lanier

  • Roderick A. RoseEmail author
Original Article


In this commentary I respond to Lewis (2019) and Lanier (2019), building on their critiques and ideas, offering some additional thoughts about the dissemination of the Campbell, Rubin, and Pearl causal frameworks and their potential emergent value to the future of family violence research. I clarify that the central issue to credibility is the plausibility of assumptions, that some widely utilized methods often require researchers to make implausible assumptions, and that there is value to knowing and using all three frameworks.


Causal inference Rubin causal framework Potential outcomes Directed acyclic graph DAG Pearl framework Campbell causal framework 



The author appreciates the commentary provided by Dr. Paul Lanier, Dr. Michael Lewis, and an anonymous third review to the original article and the helpful comments of Rebecca J. Macy to an earlier draft of this response.


  1. Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J. S. (2009). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist’s companion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Austin, A. E., Desrosiers, T. A., & Shanahan, M. E. (2019). Directed acyclic graphs: An under-utilized tool for child maltreatment research. Child Abuse & Neglect, 91, 78–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnighausen, T., Oldenburg, C., Tugwell, P., Bommer, C., Ebert, C., Barreto, M., et al. (2017). Quasi-experimental design series—Paper 7: Assessing the assumptions. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 89, 53–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Guo, S., & Fraser, M. W. (2015). Propensity score analysis: Statistical methods and applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  5. How to solve U.S. social problems when most rigorous program evaluations find disappointing effects (part two – A proposed solution). (April 13, 2018). Retrieved from:
  6. Lanier, P. (2019). Frameworks of causal inference for improving intervention, prediction, and imagination in family violence research: A commentary on Rose (2019). Journal of Family Violence. Google Scholar
  7. Lewis, M. E. (2019). TITLE: A commentary on Rose (2019). Journal of Family Violence. Google Scholar
  8. Morgan, S. L. & Winship, C. (2014). Counterfactuals and causal inference: Methods and principles for social research (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Pearl, J. (2009). Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Pearl, J., & MacKenzie, D. (2018). The book of why: The new science of cause and effect. NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  11. Rose, R. A. (2019). Frameworks for credible causal inference in observational studies of family violence. Journal of Family Violence. Google Scholar
  12. Shadish, W. R. (2010). Campbell and Rubin: A primer and comparison of their approaches to causal inference in field settings. Psychological Methods, 15(1), 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Shadish, W. R., Clark, M. H., & Steiner, P. M. (2008). Can nonrandomized experiments yield accurate answers? A randomized experiment comparing random and nonrandom assign- ments. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 103(484), 1353–1356. Scholar
  14. Stone, S. (2014). Comtemporary quantitative methods and “slow” causal inference: Response to Palinkas. Research on Social Work Practice, 24(5), 552–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Thoemmes, F. F. J., & Kim, E. S. (2011). A systematic review of propensity score methods in the social sciences. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46(1), 90–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Vanderweele, T. (2015). Explanation in causal inference. NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Social WorkUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations