Skip to main content
Journal cover image

Should age-period-cohort studies return to the methodologies of the 1970s?

Publication ,  Journal Article
Reither, EN; Masters, RK; Yang, YC; Powers, DA; Zheng, H; Land, KC
Published in: Social science & medicine (1982)
March 2015

Social scientists have recognized the importance of age-period-cohort (APC) models for half a century, but have spent much of this time mired in debates about the feasibility of APC methods. Recently, a new class of APC methods based on modern statistical knowledge has emerged, offering potential solutions. In 2009, Reither, Hauser and Yang used one of these new methods - hierarchical APC (HAPC) modeling - to study how birth cohorts may have contributed to the U.S. obesity epidemic. They found that recent birth cohorts experience higher odds of obesity than their predecessors, but that ubiquitous period-based changes are primarily responsible for the rising prevalence of obesity. Although these findings have been replicated elsewhere, recent commentaries by Bell and Jones call them into question - along with the new class of APC methods. Specifically, Bell and Jones claim that new APC methods do not adequately address model identification and suggest that "solid theory" is often sufficient to remove one of the three temporal dimensions from empirical consideration. They also present a series of simulation models that purportedly show how the HAPC models estimated by Reither et al. (2009) could have produced misleading results. However, these simulation models rest on assumptions that there were no period effects, and associations between period and cohort variables and the outcome were perfectly linear. Those are conditions under which APC models should never be used. Under more tenable assumptions, our own simulations show that HAPC methods perform well, both in recovering the main findings presented by Reither et al. (2009) and the results reported by Bell and Jones. We also respond to critiques about model identification and theoretically-imposed constraints, finding little pragmatic support for such arguments. We conclude by encouraging social scientists to move beyond the debates of the 1970s and toward a deeper appreciation for modern APC methodologies.

Duke Scholars

Published In

Social science & medicine (1982)

DOI

EISSN

1873-5347

ISSN

0277-9536

Publication Date

March 2015

Volume

128

Start / End Page

356 / 365

Related Subject Headings

  • Social Change
  • Research Design
  • Public Health
  • Obesity
  • Models, Statistical
  • Male
  • Humans
  • Health Status Disparities
  • Female
  • Cohort Effect
 

Citation

APA
Chicago
ICMJE
MLA
NLM
Reither, E. N., Masters, R. K., Yang, Y. C., Powers, D. A., Zheng, H., & Land, K. C. (2015). Should age-period-cohort studies return to the methodologies of the 1970s? Social Science & Medicine (1982), 128, 356–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.01.011
Reither, Eric N., Ryan K. Masters, Yang Claire Yang, Daniel A. Powers, Hui Zheng, and Kenneth C. Land. “Should age-period-cohort studies return to the methodologies of the 1970s?Social Science & Medicine (1982) 128 (March 2015): 356–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.01.011.
Reither EN, Masters RK, Yang YC, Powers DA, Zheng H, Land KC. Should age-period-cohort studies return to the methodologies of the 1970s? Social science & medicine (1982). 2015 Mar;128:356–65.
Reither, Eric N., et al. “Should age-period-cohort studies return to the methodologies of the 1970s?Social Science & Medicine (1982), vol. 128, Mar. 2015, pp. 356–65. Epmc, doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.01.011.
Reither EN, Masters RK, Yang YC, Powers DA, Zheng H, Land KC. Should age-period-cohort studies return to the methodologies of the 1970s? Social science & medicine (1982). 2015 Mar;128:356–365.
Journal cover image

Published In

Social science & medicine (1982)

DOI

EISSN

1873-5347

ISSN

0277-9536

Publication Date

March 2015

Volume

128

Start / End Page

356 / 365

Related Subject Headings

  • Social Change
  • Research Design
  • Public Health
  • Obesity
  • Models, Statistical
  • Male
  • Humans
  • Health Status Disparities
  • Female
  • Cohort Effect