Kristopher J. Preacher

Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models

Hypotheses involving mediation are common in the behavioral sciences. Mediation exists when a predictor affects a dependent variable indirectly through at least one intervening variable, or mediator. Methods to assess mediation involving multiple simultaneous mediators have received little attention in the methodological literature despite a clear need. We provide an overview of simple and multiple mediation and explore three approaches that can be used to investigate indirect processes, as well as methods for contrasting two or more mediators within a single model. We present an illustrative example, assessing and contrasting potential mediators of the relationship between the helpfulness of socialization agents and job satisfaction. We also provide SAS and SPSS macros, as well as Mplus and LISREL syntax, to facilitate the use of these methods in applications.

SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models

Researchers often conduct mediation analysis in order to indirectly assess the effect of a proposed cause on some outcome through a proposed mediator. The utility of mediation analysis stems from its ability to go beyond the merely descriptive to a more functional understanding of the relationships among variables. A necessary component of mediation is a statistically and practically significant indirect effect. Although mediation hypotheses are frequently explored in psychological research, formal significance tests of indirect effects are rarely conducted. After a brief overview of mediation, we argue the importance of directly testing the significance of indirect effects and provide SPSS and SAS macros that facilitate estimation of the indirect effect with a normal theory approach and a bootstrap approach to obtaining confidence intervals, as well as the traditional approach advocated by Baron and Kenny (1986). We hope that this discussion and the macros will enhance the frequency of formal mediation tests in the psychology literature. Electronic copies of these macros may be downloaded from the Psychonomic Society’s Web archive atwww.psychonomic.org/archive/.

Addressing Moderated Mediation Hypotheses: Theory, Methods, and Prescriptions

This article provides researchers with a guide to properly construe and conduct analyses of conditional indirect effects, commonly known as moderated mediation effects. We disentangle conflicting definitions of moderated mediation and describe approaches for estimating and testing a variety of hypotheses involving conditional indirect effects. We introduce standard errors for hypothesis testing and construction of confidence intervals in large samples but advocate that researchers use bootstrapping whenever possible. We also describe methods for probing significant conditional indirect effects by employing direct extensions of the simple slopes method and Johnson-Neyman technique for probing significant interactions. Finally, we provide an SPSS macro to facilitate the implementation of the recommended asymptotic and bootstrapping methods. We illustrate the application of these methods with an example drawn from the Michigan Study of Adolescent Life Transitions, showing that the indirect effect of intrinsic student interest on mathematics performance through teacher perceptions of talent is moderated by student math self-concept.

Computational Tools for Probing Interactions in Multiple Linear Regression, Multilevel Modeling, and Latent Curve Analysis

Simple slopes, regions of significance, and confidence bands are commonly used to evaluate interactions in multiple linear regression (MLR) models, and the use of these techniques has recently been extended to multilevel or hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) and latent curve analysis (LCA). However, conducting these tests and plotting the conditional relations is often a tedious and error-prone task. This article provides an overview of methods used to probe interaction effects and describes a unified collection of freely available online resources that researchers can use to obtain significance tests for simple slopes, compute regions of significance, and obtain confidence bands for simple slopes across the range of the moderator in the MLR, HLM, and LCA contexts. Plotting capabilities are also provided.

Effect size measures for mediation models: Quantitative strategies for communicating indirect effects.

The statistical analysis of mediation effects has become an indispensable tool for helping scientists investigate processes thought to be causal. Yet, in spite of many recent advances in the estimation and testing of mediation effects, little attention has been given to methods for communicating effect size and the practical importance of those effect sizes. Our goals in this article are to (a) outline some general desiderata for effect size measures, (b) describe current methods of expressing effect size and practical importance for mediation, (c) use the desiderata to evaluate these methods, and (d) develop new methods to communicate effect size in the context of mediation analysis. The first new effect size index we describe is a residual-based index that quantifies the amount of variance explained in both the mediator and the outcome. The second new effect size index quantifies the indirect effect as the proportion of the maximum possible indirect effect that could have been obtained, given the scales of the variables involved. We supplement our discussion by offering easy-to-use R tools for the numerical and visual communication of effect size for mediation effects.

A General Multilevel SEM Framework for Assessing Multilevel Mediation.

Several methods for testing mediation hypotheses with 2-level nested data have been proposed by researchers using a multilevel modeling (MLM) paradigm. However, these MLM approaches do not accommodate mediation pathways with Level-2 outcomes and may produce conflated estimates of between- and within-level components of indirect effects. Moreover, these methods have each appeared in isolation, so a unified framework that integrates the existing methods, as well as new multilevel mediation models, is lacking. Here we show that a multilevel structural equation modeling (MSEM) paradigm can overcome these 2 limitations of mediation analysis with MLM. We present an integrative 2-level MSEM mathematical framework that subsumes new and existing multilevel mediation approaches as special cases. We use several applied examples and accompanying software code to illustrate the flexibility of this framework and to show that different substantive conclusions can be drawn using MSEM versus MLM.

Conceptualizing and testing random indirect effects and moderated mediation in multilevel models: New procedures and recommendations.

The authors propose new procedures for evaluating direct, indirect, and total effects in multilevel models when all relevant variables are measured at Level 1 and all effects are random. Formulas are provided for the mean and variance of the indirect and total effects and for the sampling variances of the average indirect and total effects. Simulations show that the estimates are unbiased under most conditions. Confidence intervals based on a normal approximation or a simulated sampling distribution perform well when the random effects are normally distributed but less so when they are nonnormally distributed. These methods are further developed to address hypotheses of moderated mediation in the multilevel context. An example demonstrates the feasibility and usefulness of the proposed methods.

Repairing Tom Swift's Electric Factor Analysis Machine

Proper use of exploratory factor analysis (EFA) requires the researcher to make a series of careful decisions. Despite attempts by Floyd and Widaman (1995), Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum, and Strahan (1999), and others to elucidate critical issues involved in these decisions, examples of questionable use of EFA are still common in the applied factor analysis literature. Poor decisions regarding the model to be used, the criteria used to decide how many factors to retain, and the rotation method can have drastic consequences for the quality and meaningfulness of factor analytic results. One commonly used approach-principal components analysis, retention of components with eigenvalues greater than 1.0, and varimax rotation of these components-is shown to have potentially serious negative consequences. In addition, choosing arbitrary thresholds for factor loadings to be considered large, using single indicators for factors, and violating the linearity assumptions underlying EFA can have negative consequences ...

Testing Multilevel Mediation Using Hierarchical Linear Models: Problems and Solutions

Testing multilevel mediation using hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) has gained tremendous popularity in recent years. However, potential confounding in multilevel mediation effect estimates can arise in these models when within-group effects differ from between-group effects. This study summarizes three types of HLM-based multilevel mediation models, and then explains that in two types of these models confounding can be produced and erroneous conclusions may be derived when using popularly recommended procedures. A Monte Carlo simulation study illustrates that these procedures can underestimate or overestimate true mediation effects. Recommendations are provided for appropriately testing multilevel mediation and for differentiating within-group versus between-group effects in multilevel settings.

Use of the extreme groups approach: a critical reexamination and new recommendations.

Analysis of continuous variables sometimes proceeds by selecting individuals on the basis of extreme scores of a sample distribution and submitting only those extreme scores to further analysis. This sampling method is known as the extreme groups approach (EGA). EGA is often used to achieve greater statistical power in subsequent hypothesis tests. However, there are several largely unrecognized costs associated with EGA that must be considered. The authors illustrate the effects EGA can have on power, standardized effect size, reliability, model specification, and the interpretability of results. Finally, the authors discuss alternative procedures, as well as possible legitimate uses of EGA. The authors urge researchers, editors, reviewers, and consumers to carefully assess the extent to which EGA is an appropriate tool in their own research and in that of others.