A large number of approaches have been proposed for estimating and testing the significance of indirect effects in mediation models. In this study, four sets of Monte Carlo simulations involving full latent variable structural equation models were run in order to contrast the effectiveness of the currently popular bias-corrected bootstrapping approach with the simple test of joint significance approach. The results from these simulations demonstrate that the test of joint significance had more power than bias-corrected bootstrapping and also yielded more reasonable Type I errors.
ArbuckleJ. L. (2003). Amos 5.0 [Computer software]. Chicago, IL: SPSS.
2.
BaronR. M.KennyD. A. (1986). A moderator-mediator variable distinction and social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
BrownR. L. (1997). Assessing specific mediational effects in complex theoretical models. Structural Equation Modeling, 4, 142-156.
5.
CheungG. W.LauR. S. (2008). Testing mediation and suppression effects of latent variables: Bootstrapping with structural equation models. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 296-325.
6.
CheungM. W.-L. (2007). Comparison of approaches to constructing confidence intervals for mediating effects using structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 227-246.
7.
FritzM. S.TaylorA. B.MackinnonD. P. (2013). Explanation of two anomalous results in statistical mediation analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47, 61-87.
HayesA. F.ScharkowM. (2014). The relative trustworthiness of inferential tests of the indirect effect in statistical mediation analyses: Does method really matter?Psychological Science, 24, 1918-1927.
KennyD. A.KashyD. A.BolgerN. (1998). Data analysis in social psychology. In FiskeS. T.GilbertD. T.LindzeyG. (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 233-265). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
12.
LauR. S.CheungG. W. (2012). Estimating and comparing specific mediation effects in complex latent variable models. Organizational Research Methods, 15, 3-16.
13.
MachoS.LedermannT. (2011). Estimating, testing, and comparing specific effects in structural equation models: The phantom model approach. Psychological Methods, 16, 34-43.
14.
MacKinnonD. P.FritzM.WilliamsJ.LockwoodC. (2007). Distribution of the product confidence limits of the indirect effect: Program PRODCLIN. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 384-389.
15.
MacKinnonD. P.LockwoodC. M.HoffmanJ. M.WestS. G.SheetsD. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83-104.
16.
MacKinnonD. P.LockwoodC. M.WilliamsJ. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 99-128.
17.
MallinckrodtB.AbrahamW. T.WeiM.RussellD. W. (2006). Advances in testing the statistical significance of mediation effects. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53, 372-378.
18.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (2006). Mplus user’s guide (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
19.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891.
20.
SobelM. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In LeinhartS. (Ed.), Sociological methodology 1982 (pp. 290-317). Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.
21.
ShroutP. E.BolgerN. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422-445.
22.
TaylorA. B.MacKinnonB. P.TeinJ.-Y. (2008). Tests of the three-path mediated effect. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 241-269.
23.
ThoemmesF.MacKinnonD. P.ReiserM. R. (2010). Power analysis for complex mediational designs using Monte Carlo methods. Structural Equation Modeling, 17, 510-534.
24.
TofighiD.MacKinnonD. P. (2011). RMediation: An R package for meditation analysis confidence intervals. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 692-700.
25.
WilkinsonL., & The Task Force on Statistical Inference. (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations. American Psychologist, 54, 594-604.
26.
ZhaoX.LynchJ. G.Jr.ChenQ. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 197-206.
