Dataset Information

Indirect Effects in Sequential Mediation Models: Evaluating Methods for Hypothesis Testing and Confidence Interval Formation.

ABSTRACT: Complex mediation models, such as a two-mediator sequential model, have become more prevalent in the literature. To test an indirect effect in a two-mediator model, we conducted a large-scale Monte Carlo simulation study of the Type I error, statistical power, and confidence interval coverage rates of 10 frequentist and Bayesian confidence/credible intervals (CIs) for normally and nonnormally distributed data. The simulation included never-studied methods and conditions (e.g., Bayesian CI with flat and weakly informative prior methods, two model-based bootstrap methods, and two nonnormality conditions) as well as understudied methods (e.g., profile-likelihood, Monte Carlo with maximum likelihood standard error [MC-ML] and robust standard error [MC-Robust]). The popular BC bootstrap showed inflated Type I error rates and CI under-coverage. We recommend different methods depending on the purpose of the analysis. For testing the null hypothesis of no mediation, we recommend MC-ML, profile-likelihood, and two Bayesian methods. To report a CI, if data has a multivariate normal distribution, we recommend MC-ML, profile-likelihood, and the two Bayesian methods; otherwise, for multivariate nonnormal data we recommend the percentile bootstrap. We argue that the best method for testing hypotheses is not necessarily the best method for CI construction, which is consistent with the findings we present.

SUBMITTER: Tofighi D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6901816 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Mar-Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Indirect Effects in Sequential Mediation Models: Evaluating Methods for Hypothesis Testing and Confidence Interval Formation.

Tofighi Davood D Kelley Ken K

Multivariate behavioral research 20190610 2

Complex mediation models, such as a two-mediator sequential model, have become more prevalent in the literature. To test an indirect effect in a two-mediator model, we conducted a large-scale Monte Carlo simulation study of the Type I error, statistical power, and confidence interval coverage rates of 10 frequentist and Bayesian confidence/credible intervals (CIs) for normally and nonnormally distributed data. The simulation included never-studied methods and conditions (e.g., Bayesian CI with f ...[more]

PMID: 31179751

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) is widely used in biomedical research to assess the reproducibility of measurements between raters, labs, technicians, or devices. For example, in an inter-rater reliability study, a high ICC value means that noise variability (between-raters and within-raters) is small relative to variability from patient to patient. A confidence interval or Bayesian credible interval for the ICC is a commonly reported summary. Such intervals can be constructed employing either frequentist or Bayesian methodologies.MethodsThis study examines the performance of three different methods for constructing an interval in a two-way, crossed, random effects model without interaction: the Generalized Confidence Interval method (GCI), the Modified Large Sample method (MLS), and a Bayesian method based on a noninformative prior distribution (NIB). Guidance is provided on interval construction method selection based on study design, sample size, and normality of the data. We compare the coverage probabilities and widths of the different interval methods.ResultsWe show that, for the two-way, crossed, random effects model without interaction, care is needed in interval method selection because the interval estimates do not always have properties that the user expects. While different methods generally perform well when there are a large number of levels of each factor, large differences between the methods emerge when the number of one or more factors is limited. In addition, all methods are shown to lack robustness to certain hard-to-detect violations of normality when the sample size is limited.ConclusionsDecision rules and software programs for interval construction are provided for practical implementation in the two-way, crossed, random effects model without interaction. All interval methods perform similarly when the data are normal and there are sufficient numbers of levels of each factor. The MLS and GCI methods outperform the NIB when one of the factors has a limited number of levels and the data are normally distributed or nearly normally distributed. None of the methods work well if the number of levels of a factor are limited and data are markedly non-normal. The software programs are implemented in the popular R language.

Dataset Information

Indirect Effects in Sequential Mediation Models: Evaluating Methods for Hypothesis Testing and Confidence Interval Formation.

Publications

Indirect Effects in Sequential Mediation Models: Evaluating Methods for Hypothesis Testing and Confidence Interval Formation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets