Abstract:Previously, Reither et al. (2015) demonstrated that hierarchical age-period-cohort (HAPC) models perform well when basic assumptions are satisfied. To contest this finding, Bell and Jones (2015) invent a data generating process (DGP) that borrows age, period and cohort effects from different equations in Reither et al. (2015). When HAPC models applied to data simulated from this DGP fail to recover the patterning of APC effects, B&J reiterate their view that these models provide "misleading evidence dressed up as science." Despite such strong words, B&J show no curiosity about their own simulated data--and therefore once again misapply HAPC models to data that violate important assumptions. In this response, we illustrate how a careful analyst could have used simple descriptive plots and model selection statistics to verify that (a) period effects are not present in these data, and (b) age and cohort effects are conflated. By accounting for the characteristics of B&J's artificial data structure, we successfully recover the "true" DGP through an appropriately specified model. We conclude that B&Js main contribution to science is to remind analysts that APC models will fail in the presence of exact algebraic effects (i.e., effects with no random/stochastic components), and when collinear temporal dimensions are included without taking special care in the modeling process. The expanded list of coauthors on this commentary represents an emerging consensus among APC scholars that B&J's essential strategy--testing HAPC models with data simulated from contrived DGPs that violate important assumptions--is not a productive way to advance the discussion about innovative APC methods in epidemiology and the social sciences.

Comment ignoring nonignorable effects: rejoinder

Conflating marginal and conditional treatment effects: Comments on 'Assessing the performance of population adjustment methods for anchored indirect comparisons: A simulation study'

Not even wrong: Reply to Wagg et al

Response to von Schmalensee et al.

Rejoinder on Causal Inference Through Potential Outcomes and Principal Stratification: Application to Studies with ``Censoring'' Due to Death by D. B. Rubin

Rejoinder to the discussion on “The central role of the identifying assumption in population size estimation”

Reply to comments on "Weak value amplification is suboptimal for estimation and detection"

DDM at Work: Reply to comments on “Dependency distance: A new perspective on syntactic patterns in natural languages”

Dr Zhou Replies

Clarifying Hierarchical Age–period–cohort Models: A Rejoinder to Bell and Jones

Rejoinder to the Response <a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="0812.2330" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/0812.2330">arXiv:0812.2330</a> to 'Comment on a recent conjectured solution of the three-dimensional Ising model'

A close look at Jeckelmann's weak-coupling results: Reply to the Comment by Jeckelmann

Counting Defiers

Rejoinder: Causal inference with misspecified exposure mappings: separating definitions and assumptions

Response to comment on "Policy impacts of statistical uncertainty and privacy"

Comments arising from WJ Thompson "Uncertainty in probabilistic genotyping of low template DNA A case study comparing STRmix and TrueAllele"

Reply to Delanghe et al, Boudin et al, and Focosi et al

Rejoinder to Article by Berger, Bernardo, and Sun

A Unified Approach to Sensitivity Analysis in Equilibrium Displacement Models: Comment

Zhu et al. Reply:

On particle acceleration and trapping by Poynting flux dominated flows