THIS COMMENTARY ADDRESSES THE STATISTICAL ISSUES WHICH ARE INVOLVED IN ASSESSING WHETHER A CAUSAL INTERPRETATION CAN BE GIVEN TO AN ASSOCIATION BETWEEN A CHANGE IN SOCIAL POLICY SUCH AS LOWERING THE LEGAL AGE FOR DRINKING ALCOHOL AND A CHANGE IN THE NATURE OF ACCIDENT INVOLVEMENT FREQUENCY FOR A PARTICULAR SUB-POPULATION OF DRIVERS LIKE 18-20 YEAR OLDS. IN THIS REGARD, TWO METHODOLOGICAL CONCERNS ARE EMPHASIZED. THE FIRST IS THE RESOLUTION OF A POSSIBLE PARADOX IN THE NATURE OF AN ASSOCIATION IN THE SENSE THAT INDIVIDUALS WITH A GREATER TENDENCY TO ACCIDENT INVOLVEMENT MAY ALSO HAVE A GREATER TENDENCY TO ALCOHOL USAGE SO THAT THEIR ALCOHOL RELATED ACCIDENT INVOLVEMENT IS COINCIDENTAL RATHER THAN CAUSAL. FOR THIS SETTING, ALCOHOL WOULD BE AN "AFTER THE FACT" CORRELATE WITH ACCIDENT INVOLVEMENT AS OPPOSED TO A POSSIBLE CAUSE. SIMILARLY, THE SECOND CONCERN IS THE ROLE OF POPULATION EXPOSURE AS AN EXPLANATION FOR THE CHANGE IN ALCOHOL RELATED ACCIDENT FREQUENCY FOR A PARTICULAR AGE GROUP. SINCE AVAILABILITY NATURALLY INCREASES THE SIZE OF THE POPULATION AT RISK FOR SUCH ACCIDENTS, THE CORRESPONDING ACCIDENT FREQUENCY MAY SIMILARLY INCREASE EVEN THOUGH THE CORRESPONDING ACCIDENT RATES MAY HAVE REMAINED UNCHANGED OR PERHAPS EVEN DECREASED. FOR THESE REASONS, ALTHOUGH ASSOCIATIONS WITH CHANGE IN SOCIAL POLICY ARE DEFINITELY OF GENERAL INTEREST, THEIR INTERPRETATION IN A CAUSAL SENSE SHOULD BE VIEWED WITH SUBSTANTIAL CAUTION UNTIL THE IMPLICATIONS OF COMPETING EXPLANATIONS ARE RECONCILED. THIS ASSERTION, HOWEVER, DOES NOT MEAN THAT SUCH ASSOCIATIONS ARE NOT USEFUL FOR POLICY PURPOSES, BUT RATHER THAT THEY LACK SUFFICIENTLY TARGETED STATISTICAL VALIDITY TO BE THE PRIMARY BASIS FOR SUCH CHANGE. IN OTHER WORDS, IF THERE IS A STRONG RATIONALE ON ECONOMIC, POLITICAL, OR SOCIAL GROUNDS FOR A POLICY CHANGE, THEN DATA PRESENTING MEANINGFUL ASSOCIATIONS WHICH ARE COMPATIBLE WITH IT CAN OFTEN PLAY AN IMPORTANT SUPPORTIVE ROLE FOR IT.(Author/publisher).
Abstract