Abstract
Mediation models are often used as a means to explain the psychological mechanisms between an independent and a dependent variable in the behavioral and social sciences. A major limitation of the unstandardized indirect effect calculated from raw scores is that it cannot be interpreted as an effect-size measure. In contrast, the standardized indirect effect calculated from standardized scores can be a good candidate as a measure of effect size because it is scale invariant. In the present article, 11 methods for constructing the confidence intervals (CIs) of the standardized indirect effects were evaluated via a computer simulation. These included six Wald CIs, three bootstrap CIs, one likelihood-based CI, and the PRODCLIN CI. The results consistently showed that the percentile bootstrap, the bias-corrected bootstrap, and the likelihood-based approaches had the best coverage probability. Mplus, LISREL, and Mx syntax were included to facilitate the use of these preferred methods in applied settings. Future issues on the use of the standardized indirect effects are discussed.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alwin, D. F., & Hauser, R. M. (1975). The decomposition of effects in path analysis. American Sociological Review, 40, 37–47.
American Psychological Association. (2001). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Aroian, L. A. (1944). The probability function of the product of two normally distributed variables. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 18, 265–271.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator—mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Bauer, D. J., Preacher, K. J., & Gil, K. M. (2006). Conceptualizing and testing random indirect effects and moderated mediation in multilevel models: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 11, 142–163.
Bentler, P. M. (2007). Can scientifically useful hypotheses be tested with correlations? American Psychologist, 62, 772–782.
Bentler, P. M., & Lee, S. Y. (1983). Covariance structures under polynomial constraints: Applications to correlation and alpha-type structural models. Journal of Educational Statistics, 8, 207–222.
Bobko, P., & Rieck, A. (1980). Large sample estimators for standard errors of functions of correlation coefficients. Applied Psychological Measurement, 4, 385–398.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
Bollen, K. A., & Stine, R. (1990). Direct and indirect effects: Classical and bootstrap estimates of variability. Sociological Methodology, 20, 115–140.
Cheung, G. W., & Lau, R. S. (2008). Testing mediation and suppression effects of latent variables: Bootstrapping with structural equation models. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 296–325.
Cheung, M. W.-L. (2007). Comparison of approaches to constructing confidence intervals for mediating effects using structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 227–246.
Cheung, M. W.-L. (2009). Constructing approximate confidence intervals for parameters with structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 267–294.
Cheung, M. W.-L., & Chan, W. (2005). Meta-analytic structural equation modeling: A two-stage approach. Psychological Methods, 10, 40–64.
Cheung, M. W.-L., & Chan, W. (2009). A two-stage approach to synthesizing covariance matrices in meta-analytic structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 28–53.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cohen, J. (1994). The world is round ( p <.05). American Psychologist, 49, 997–1003.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cudeck, R. (1989). Analysis of correlation matrices using covariance structure models. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 317–327.
Cumming, G., Fidler, F., Leonard, M., Kalinowski, P., Christiansen, A., Kleinig, A., et al. (2007). Statistical reform in psychology: Is anything changing? Psychological Science, 18, 230–232.
Davison, A. C., & Hinkley, D. V. (1997). Bootstrap methods and their application. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12, 1–22.
Fritz, M. S., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2007). Required sample size to detect the mediated effect. Psychological Science, 18, 233–239.
Goodman, L. A. (1960). On the exact variance of products. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 55, 708–713.
Harlow, L. L., Mulaik, S. A., & Steiger, J. H. (1997). What if there were no significance tests? Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Hedges, L. V., & Vevea, J. L. (1998). Fixed- and random-effects models in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 3, 486–504.
Hoyle, R. H., & Kenny, D. A. (1999). Sample size, reliability, and tests of statistical mediation. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Statistical strategies for small sample research (pp. 195–222). Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage.
Hunter, J. E., & Hamilton, M. A. (2002). The advantages of using standardized scores in causal analysis. Human Communication Research, 28, 552–561.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
James, L. R., & Brett, J. M. (1984). Mediators, moderators, and tests for mediation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 307–321.
James, L. R., Mulaik, S. A., & Brett, J. M. (2006). A tale of two methods. Organizational Research Methods, 9, 233–244.
Jöreskog, K. G. (1999). How large can a standardized coefficient be? Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International. Available at www.ssicentral.com.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: A user’s reference guide. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
Jöreskog, K. G., Sörbom, D., Du Toit, S., & Du Toit, M. (1999). LISREL 8: New Statistical Features. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
Judd, C. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1981). Process analysis: Estimating mediation in treatment evaluations. Evaluation Review, 5, 602–619.
Kirk, R. E. (1996). Practical significance: A concept whose time has come. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 56, 746–759.
Kline, R. B. (2004). Beyond significance testing: Reforming data analysis methods in behavioral research. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
MacKinnon, D. P. (2000). Contrasts in multiple mediator models. In J. S. Rose, L. Chassin, C. C. Presson, & S. J. Sherman (Eds.), Multivariate applications in substance use research: New methods for new questions (pp. 141–160). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. (2007). Mediation analysis. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 593–614.
MacKinnon, D. P., Fritz, M. S., Williams, J., & Lockwood, C. M. (2007). Distribution of the product confidence limits for the indirect effect: Program PRODLIN. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 384–389.
MacKinnon, D. P., Krull, J. L., & Lockwood, C. M. (2000). Equivalence of the mediation, confounding, and suppression effect. Prevention Science, 1, 173–181.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test the significance of the mediated effect. Psychological Methods, 7, 83–104.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 99–128.
MacKinnon, D. P., Warsi, G., & Dwyer, J. H. (1995). A simulation study of mediated effect measures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 30, 41–62.
Morgan-Lopez, A. A., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2006). Demonstration and evaluation of a method for assessing mediated moderation. Behavior Research Methods, 38, 77–87.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Mplus user’s guide (5th ed.). Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.
Neale, M. C., Boker, S. M., Xie, G., & Maes, H. H. (2005). Mx: Statistical modeling (6th ed.). Richmond, VA: Virginia Commonwealth University, Department of Psychiatry.
Neale, M. C., & Miller, M. B. (1997). The use of likelihood-based confidence intervals in genetic models. Behavior Genetics, 27, 113–120.
Olkin, I., & Finn, J. D. (1995). Correlation redux. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 155–164.
Olkin, I., & Siotani, M. (1976). Asymptotic distribution of functions of a correlation matrix. In S. Ideka (Ed.), Essays in probability and statistics (pp. 235–251). Tokyo: Shinko Tsusho.
Pituch, K. A., Whittaker, T. A., & Stapleton, L. M. (2005). A comparison of methods to test for mediation in multisite experiments. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 40, 1–23.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717–731.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008a). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008b). Contemporary approaches to assessing mediation in communication research. In A. F. Hayes, M. D. Slater, & L. B. Snyder (Eds.), The Sage sourcebook of advanced data analysis methods for communication research (pp. 13–54). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypothesis: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185–227.
Quinones-Vidal, E., Lopez-Garcia, J. J., Penaranda-Ortega, M., & Tortosa-Gil, F. (2004). The nature of social and personality psychology as reflected in JPSP, 1965–2000. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 86, 435–452.
Raykov, T., Brennan, M., Reinhardt, J. P., & Horowitz, A. (2008). Comparison of mediated effects: A correlation structure modeling approach. Structural Equation Modeling, 15, 603–626.
Raykov, T., & Shrout, P. E. (2002). Reliability of scales with general structure: Point and interval estimation using a structural equation modeling approach. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 195–212.
R Development Core Team (2008). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at www.r-project.org.
Rindskopf, D. (1984). Using phantom and imaginary latent variables to parameterize constraints in linear structural models. Psychometrika, 49, 37–47.
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422–445.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociological Methodology, 13, 290–312.
Sobel, M. E. (1986). Some new results on indirect effects and their standard errors in covariance structural models. Sociological Methodology, 16, 159–186.
Stuart, A., & Ord, J. K. (1994). Kendall’s advanced theory of statistics: Vol. 1. Distribution theory (6th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Tamhane, A. C., & Dunlop, D. D. (2000). Statistics and data analysis: From elementary to intermediate. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Taylor, A. B., MacKinnon, D. P., & Tein, J. (2008). Tests of the threepath mediated effect. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 241–269.
Wansbeek, T., & Meijer, E. (2000). Measurement error and latent variables in econometrics. New York: Elsevier.
Wilkinson, L., Task Force on Statistical Inference, American Psychological Association, Science Directorate, Washington DC (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations. American Psychologists, 54, 594–604.
Williams, J., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Resampling and distribution of the product methods for testing indirect effects in complex models. Structural Equation Modeling, 15, 23–51.
Yung, Y.-F. (2008, July). Testing and contrasting mediation or indirect effects in SEM: An analytic approach and its implementation. Paper presented at the 73rd Annual Meeting of the Psychometric Society, Durham, NH.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported by the Academic Research Fund Tier 1 (R-581-000-064-112) from the Ministry of Education, Singapore. I thank Maggie Chan, Ivan Ong, and Yiu-Fai Yung for their comments on earlier versions of this article.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cheung, M.W.L. Comparison of methods for constructing confidence intervals of standardized indirect effects. Behavior Research Methods 41, 425–438 (2009). https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.2.425
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.2.425