Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-l4dxg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-08T09:55:05.681Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Understanding Power Anomalies in Mediation Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Kai Wang Open the ORCID record for Kai Wang [Opens in a new window]
Kai Wang*
Affiliation:
Department of Biostatistics, College of Public Health, The University of Iowa
*
Correspondence should be made to Kai Wang, Department of Biostatistics, College of Public Health, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA52242, USA. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Previous studies have found some puzzling power anomalies related to testing the indirect effect of a mediator. The power for the indirect effect stagnates and even declines as the size of the indirect effect increases. Furthermore, the power for the indirect effect can be much higher than the power for the total effect in a model where there is no direct effect and therefore the indirect effect is of the same magnitude as the total effect. In the presence of direct effect, the power for the indirect effect is often much higher than the power for the direct effect even when these two effects are of the same magnitude. In this study, the limiting distributions of related statistics and their non-centralities are derived. Computer simulations are conducted to demonstrate their validity. These theoretical results are used to explain the observed anomalies.

Keywords

mediationindirect effecttotal effectdirect effectpowerconsistency
Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 83 , Issue 2 , June 2018 , pp. 387 - 406
Copyright
Copyright © 2017 The Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Fritz, M.S., Taylor, A.B., MacKinnon, D.P., (2012). Explanation of two anomalous results in statistical mediation analysis, Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47(1), 61–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greene, W.H., (1993). Econometric analysis. 2, New York:Macmillan Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Imai, K., Keele, L., Yamamoto, T., (2010). Identification, inference and sensitivity analysis for causal mediation effects, Statistical Science, 25(1), 51–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenny, D.A., Judd, C.M., (2014). Power anomalies in testing mediation, Psychological Science, 25(2), 334–339.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loeys, T., Moerkerke, B., Vansteelandt, S., (2014). A cautionary note on the power of the test for the indirect effect in mediation analysis, Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1549.Google ScholarPubMed
MacKinnon, D.P.Introduction to statistical mediation analysis 2008 New York:Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
MacKinnon, D.P., Lockwood, C.M., Hoffman, J.M., West, S.G., Sheets, V., (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects, Psychological Methods, 7(1), 83–1042819363.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Rourke, H.P., MacKinnon, D.P., (2015). When the test of mediation is more powerful than the test of the total effect, Behavior Research Methods, 47(2), 424–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rucker, D.D., Preacher, K.J., Tormala, Z.L., Petty, R.E., (2011). Mediation analysis in social psychology: Current practices and new recommendations, Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5(6), 359–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sobel, M.E., (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models, Sociological Methodology, 13(1982), 290–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tofighi, D., MacKinnon, D.P., Yoon, M., (2009). Covariances between regression coefficient estimates in a single mediator model, British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 62(3), 457–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhao, X., Lynch, J.G., Chen, Q., (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis, Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar