The impossibility of separating age, period and cohort effects

This commentary discusses the age–period–cohort identification problem. It shows that, despite a plethora of proposed solutions in the literature, no model is able to solve the identification problem because the identification problem is inherent to the real-world processes being modelled. As such,...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Social science & medicine (1982) 2013-09, Vol.93, p.163-165
Main Authors: Bell, Andrew, Jones, Kelvyn
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Age
Age Groups
Age–period–cohort models
Biological and medical sciences
Collinearity
Employment - statistics & numerical data
Female
Humans
Identification
Male
Medical sciences
Miscellaneous
Model identification
Public health. Hygiene
Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine
Research Methodology
Research methods
Social problems
Suicide - statistics & numerical data
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:This commentary discusses the age–period–cohort identification problem. It shows that, despite a plethora of proposed solutions in the literature, no model is able to solve the identification problem because the identification problem is inherent to the real-world processes being modelled. As such, we cast doubt on the conclusions of a number of papers, including one presented here (Page, Milner, Morrell, & Taylor, 2013). We conclude with some recommendations for those wanting to model age, period and cohort in a compelling way. •Age, period and cohort (APC) trends cannot be disentangled mechanically.•Explicit assumptions must be made for APC models to be identified.•Imposing arbitrary assumptions leads to arbitrary model results.•Assumptions should be based on strong theory and be stated explicitly.
ISSN:0277-9536
1873-5347
DOI:10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.04.029