Display Settings:

Format

Send to:

Choose Destination
We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information
    Psychol Methods. 2002 Mar;7(1):83-104.

    A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects.

    Source

    Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, Tempe 85287-1104, USA. David.MacKinnon@asu.edu

    Abstract

    A Monte Carlo study compared 14 methods to test the statistical significance of the intervening variable effect. An intervening variable (mediator) transmits the effect of an independent variable to a dependent variable. The commonly used R. M. Baron and D. A. Kenny (1986) approach has low statistical power. Two methods based on the distribution of the product and 2 difference-in-coefficients methods have the most accurate Type I error rates and greatest statistical power except in 1 important case in which Type I error rates are too high. The best balance of Type I error and statistical power across all cases is the test of the joint significance of the two effects comprising the intervening variable effect.

    PMID:
    11928892
    [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
    PMCID:
    PMC2819363
    Free PMC Article

    Images from this publication.See all images (1)Free text

    Figure 1

      Supplemental Content

      Icon for American Psychological Association Icon for PubMed Central

      Save items

      Recent activity

      Your browsing activity is empty.

      Activity recording is turned off.

      Turn recording back on

      See more...
      Write to the Help Desk