Explanation of Two Anomalous Results in Statistical Mediation Analysis

Previous studies of different methods of testing mediation models have consistently found two anomalous results. The first result is elevated Type I error rates for the bias-corrected and accelerated bias-corrected bootstrap tests not found in nonresampling tests or in resampling tests that did not include a bias correction. This is of special concern as the bias-corrected bootstrap is often recommended and used due to its higher statistical power compared with other tests. The second result is statistical power reaching an asymptote far below 1.0 and in some conditions even declining slightly as the size of the relationship between X and M, a, increased. Two computer simulations were conducted to examine these findings in greater detail. Results from the first simulation found that the increased Type I error rates for the bias-corrected and accelerated bias-corrected bootstrap are a function of an interaction between the size of the individual paths making up the mediated effect and the sample size, such that elevated Type I error rates occur when the sample size is small and the effect size of the nonzero path is medium or larger. Results from the second simulation found that stagnation and decreases in statistical power as a function of the effect size of the a path occurred primarily when the path between M and Y, b, was small. Two empirical mediation examples are provided using data from a steroid prevention and health promotion program aimed at high school football players (Athletes Training and Learning to Avoid Steroids; Goldberg et al., 1996), one to illustrate a possible Type I error for the bias-corrected bootstrap test and a second to illustrate a loss in power related to the size of a. Implications of these findings are discussed.     

The Performance of Methods to Test Upper-Level Mediation in the Presence of Nonnormal Data

A Monte Carlo study compared the statistical performance of standard and robust multilevel mediation analysis methods to test indirect effects for a cluster randomized experimental design under various departures from normality. The performance of these methods was examined for an upper-level mediation process, where the indirect effect is a fixed effect and a group-implemented treatment is hypothesized to impact a person-level outcome via a person-level mediator. Two methods—the bias-corrected parametric percentile bootstrap and the empirical-M test—had the best overall performance. Methods designed for nonnormal score distributions exhibited elevated Type I error rates and poorer confidence interval coverage under some conditions. Although preliminary, the findings suggest that new mediation analysis methods may provide for robust tests of indirect effects.     

Bootstrap Confidence Intervals for Ordinary Least Squares Factor Loadings and Correlations in Exploratory Factor Analysis

This article is concerned with using the bootstrap to assign confidence intervals for rotated factor loadings and factor correlations in ordinary least squares exploratory factor analysis. Coverage performances of SE-based intervals, percentile intervals, bias-corrected percentile intervals, bias-corrected accelerated percentile intervals, and hybrid intervals are explored using simulation studies involving different sample sizes, perfect and imperfect models, and normal and elliptical data. The bootstrap confidence intervals are also illustrated using a personality data set of 537 Chinese men. The results suggest that the bootstrap is an effective method for assigning confidence intervals at moderately large sample sizes.     

Constructing second‐order accurate confidence intervals for communalities in factor analysis

In an effort to find accurate alternatives to the usual confidence intervals based on normal approximations, this paper compares four methods of generating second‐order accurate confidence intervals for non‐standardized and standardized communalities in exploratory factor analysis under the normality assumption. The methods to generate the intervals employ, respectively, the Cornish–Fisher expansion and the approximate bootstrap confidence (ABC), and the bootstrap‐t and the bias‐corrected and accelerated bootstrap (BC_a). The former two are analytical and the latter two are numerical. Explicit expressions of the asymptotic bias and skewness of the communality estimators, used in the analytical methods, are derived. A Monte Carlo experiment reveals that the performance of central intervals based on normal approximations is a consequence of imbalance of miscoverage on the left‐ and right‐hand sides. The second‐order accurate intervals do not require symmetry around the point estimates of the usual intervals and achieve better balance, even when the sample size is not large. The behaviours of the second‐order accurate intervals were similar to each other, particularly for large sample sizes, and no method performed consistently better than the others.     

Four applications of permutation methods to testing a single-mediator model

Four applications of permutation tests to the single-mediator model are described and evaluated in this study. Permutation tests work by rearranging data in many possible ways in order to estimate the sampling distribution for the test statistic. The four applications to mediation evaluated here are the permutation test of ab, the permutation joint significance test, and the noniterative and iterative permutation confidence intervals for ab. A Monte Carlo simulation study was used to compare these four tests with the four best available tests for mediation found in previous research: the joint significance test, the distribution of the product test, and the percentile and bias-corrected bootstrap tests. We compared the different methods on Type I error, power, and confidence interval coverage. The noniterative permutation confidence interval for ab was the best performer among the new methods. It successfully controlled Type I error, had power nearly as good as the most powerful existing methods, and had better coverage than any existing method. The iterative permutation confidence interval for ab had lower power than do some existing methods, but it performed better than any other method in terms of coverage. The permutation confidence interval methods are recommended when estimating a confidence interval is a primary concern. SPSS and SAS macros that estimate these confidence intervals are provided.     

Comparison of methods for constructing confidence intervals of standardized indirect effects

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.     

参数和非参数Bootstrap方法的简单中介效应分析比较

采用数据模拟技术比较了(偏差校正和未校正的)参数和非参数Bootstrap方法在简单中介效应分析中的表现。结果表明,1)偏差校正的Bootstrap法的总体表现优于未校正的Bootstrap方法,但在某些条件下会高估第Ⅰ类错误率,导致在 时的置信区间偏差较大。2)参数Bootstrap方法优于非参数Bootstrap方法,偏差校正的参数百分位残差Bootstrap法的综合表现最优,且具有适用范围广,对原始样本依赖性小的优点,最具实用性。     

Constructing Confidence Intervals for Effect Size Measures of an Indirect Effect

Confidence intervals for an effect size can provide the information about the magnitude of an effect and its precision as well as the binary decision about the existence of an effect. In this study, the performances of five different methods for constructing confidence intervals for ratio effect size measures of an indirect effect were compared in terms of power, coverage rates, Type I error rates, and widths of confidence intervals. The five methods include the percentile bootstrap method, the bias-corrected and accelerated (BCa) bootstrap method, the delta method, the Fieller method, and the Monte Carlo method. The results were discussed with respect to the adequacy of the distributional assumptions and the nature of ratio quantity. The confidence intervals from the five methods showed similar results for samples of more than 500, whereas, for samples of less than 500, the confidence intervals were sufficiently narrow to convey the information about the population effect sizes only when the effect sizes of regression coefficients defining the indirect effect are large.     

Confidence Intervals for the Probability of Superiority Effect Size Measure and the Area Under a Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve

It is good scientific practice to the report an appropriate estimate of effect size and a confidence interval (CI) to indicate the precision with which a population effect was estimated. For comparisons of 2 independent groups, a probability-based effect size estimator (A) that is equal to the area under a receiver operating characteristic curve and closely related to the popular Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney nonparametric statistical tests has many appealing properties (e.g., easy to understand, robust to violations of parametric assumptions, insensitive to outliers). We performed a simulation study to compare 9 analytic and 3 empirical (bootstrap) methods for constructing a CI for A that can yield very different CIs for the same data. The experimental design crossed 6 factors to yield a total of 324 cells representing challenging but realistic data conditions. Results were examined using several criteria, with emphasis placed on the extent to which observed CI coverage probabilities approximated nominal levels. Based on the simulation study results, the bias-corrected and accelerated bootstrap method is recommended for constructing a CI for the A statistic; bootstrap methods also provided the least biased and most accurate standard error of A. An empirical illustration examining score differences on a citation-based index of scholarly impact across faculty at low-ranked versus high-ranked research universities underscores the importance of choosing an appropriate CI method.     

中介效应的检验方法和效果量测量:回顾与展望

通过中介效应检验方法之间的比较和效果量指标之间的比较,建议放弃将总效应c显著作为中介效应检验的前提条件,放弃基于直接效应c'显著性的完全和部分中介的提法,推荐使用偏差校正的百分位Bootstrap法直接对中介效应ab进行检验,使用κ²、R_med²等中介效果量指标并报告效果量的置信区间。作为示例,用R软件的MBESS软件包对某消防员饮食健康调查进行了中介效应检验和效果量测量。随后展望了中介效应检验方法和效果量测量的拓展方向。     

Simplified Estimation and Testing in Unbalanced Repeated Measures Designs

In this paper we propose a simple estimator for unbalanced repeated measures design models where each unit is observed at least once in each cell of the experimental design. The estimator does not require a model of the error covariance structure. Thus, circularity of the error covariance matrix and estimation of correlation parameters and variances are not necessary. Together with a weak assumption about the reason for the varying number of observations, the proposed estimator and its variance estimator are unbiased. As an alternative to confidence intervals based on the normality assumption, a bias-corrected and accelerated bootstrap technique is considered. We also propose the naive percentile bootstrap for Wald-type tests where the standard Wald test may break down when the number of observations is small relative to the number of parameters to be estimated. In a simulation study we illustrate the properties of the estimator and the bootstrap techniques to calculate confidence intervals and conduct hypothesis tests in small and large samples under normality and non-normality of the errors. The results imply that the simple estimator is only slightly less efficient than an estimator that correctly assumes a block structure of the error correlation matrix, a special case of which is an equi-correlation matrix. Application of the estimator and the bootstrap technique is illustrated using data from a task switch experiment based on an experimental within design with 32 cells and 33 participants.

     

Flexible Approaches to Computing Mediated Effects in Generalized Linear Models: Generalized Estimating Equations and Bootstrapping

In behavioral research, interest is often in examining the degree to which the effect of an independent variable X on an outcome Y is mediated by an intermediary or mediator variable M. This article illustrates how generalized estimating equations (GEE) modeling can be used to estimate the indirect or mediated effect, defined as the amount by which the regression coefficient of X on Y changes after adjusting for M. Advantages of this method are: (a) it applies to the class of generalized linear models, including linear, logistic, and Poisson regression as special cases; (b) it allows multiple independent variables and mediators in the same model; and (c) asymptotically valid standard errors and confidence intervals are obtained using standard software. This methodology is compared with the bootstrap, another general methodology that can be applied to the same broad class of models, and is evaluated using simulation in both linear and logistic regression scenarios. The methods are utilized to examine the degree to which the effect of low birthweight status on internalizing symptoms at age 20 is mediated through IQ at age 8.     

Bias-corrected estimation of the Rudas–Clogg–Lindsay mixture index of fit

Rudas, Clogg, and Lindsay (1994, J. R Stat Soc. Ser. B, 56, 623) introduced the so-called mixture index of fit, also known as pi-star (π*), for quantifying the goodness of fit of a model. It is the lowest proportion of ‘contamination’ which, if removed from the population or from the sample, makes the fit of the model perfect. The mixture index of fit has been widely used in psychometric studies. We show that the asymptotic confidence limits proposed by Rudas et al. (1994, J. R Stat Soc. Ser. B, 56, 623) as well as the jackknife confidence interval by Dayton ( 2003 , Br. J. Math. Stat. Psychol., 56, 1) perform poorly, and propose a new bias-corrected point estimate, a bootstrap test and confidence limits for pi-star. The proposed confidence limits have coverage probability much closer to the nominal level than the other methods do. We illustrate the usefulness of the proposed method in practice by presenting some practical applications to log-linear models for contingency tables.     

Testing autocorrelation and partial autocorrelation: Asymptotic methods versus resampling techniques

Autocorrelation and partial autocorrelation, which provide a mathematical tool to understand repeating patterns in time series data, are often used to facilitate the identification of model orders of time series models (e.g., moving average and autoregressive models). Asymptotic methods for testing autocorrelation and partial autocorrelation such as the 1/T approximation method and the Bartlett's formula method may fail in finite samples and are vulnerable to non-normality. Resampling techniques such as the moving block bootstrap and the surrogate data method are competitive alternatives. In this study, we use a Monte Carlo simulation study and a real data example to compare asymptotic methods with the aforementioned resampling techniques. For each resampling technique, we consider both the percentile method and the bias-corrected and accelerated method for interval construction. Simulation results show that the surrogate data method with percentile intervals yields better performance than the other methods. An R package pautocorr is used to carry out tests evaluated in this study.     

Assessing Mediational Models: Testing and Interval Estimation for Indirect Effects

Theoretical models specifying indirect or mediated effects are common in the social sciences. An indirect effect exists when an independent variable's influence on the dependent variable is mediated through an intervening variable. Classic approaches to assessing such mediational hypotheses (Baron &; Kenny, 1986 Baron, R. M. and Kenny, D. A. 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations.. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51: 1173–1182. [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Sobel, 1982 Sobel, M. E. 1982. “Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models.”. In Sociological methodology 1982 Edited by: Leinhardt, S. 290–312. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]) have in recent years been supplemented by computationally intensive methods such as bootstrapping, the distribution of the product methods, and hierarchical Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods. These different approaches for assessing mediation are illustrated using data from Dunn, Biesanz, Human, and Finn (2007). However, little is known about how these methods perform relative to each other, particularly in more challenging situations, such as with data that are incomplete and/or nonnormal. This article presents an extensive Monte Carlo simulation evaluating a host of approaches for assessing mediation. We examine Type I error rates, power, and coverage. We study normal and nonnormal data as well as complete and incomplete data. In addition, we adapt a method, recently proposed in statistical literature, that does not rely on confidence intervals (CIs) to test the null hypothesis of no indirect effect. The results suggest that the new inferential method—the partial posterior p value—slightly outperforms existing ones in terms of maintaining Type I error rates while maximizing power, especially with incomplete data. Among confidence interval approaches, the bias-corrected accelerated (BC _a ) bootstrapping approach often has inflated Type I error rates and inconsistent coverage and is not recommended; In contrast, the bootstrapped percentile confidence interval and the hierarchical Bayesian MCMC method perform best overall, maintaining Type I error rates, exhibiting reasonable power, and producing stable and accurate coverage rates.     

A Conditional Process Analysis of the Coach-Created Mastery Climate,Task Goal Orientation,and Competence Satisfaction in Youth Soccer: The Moderating Role of Controlling Coach Behavior

The purpose of this study was to investigate controlling coach behavior as a boundary condition for the relationship between a mastery climate, task goal orientation, and competence satisfaction in youth soccer. Latent conditional process modeling was conducted with a sample of 1,119 female and male youth soccer players 10–15 years of age. Results indicated that the interaction between controlling coach behavior and coach-created mastery climate accounted for 4% variance in task goal orientation. Furthermore, the indirect link between coach-created mastery climate and competence, through task goal orientation, was significant at all levels of controlling coach behavior, yet decreased from low (–1 SD; B =.40, 95% confidence interval [CI_BC] [.28,.52]), to moderate (M; B =.35, 95% CI_BC [.26,.46]), to high levels (+1 SD; B =.31, 95% CI_BC [.22,.41]). Findings are interpreted as supporting the idea that controlling coach behavior abates the internalization of mastery values, thereby undermining the relationship between the coach-created mastery climate and players' competence satisfaction.     

Standard errors and confidence intervals for correlations corrected for indirect range restriction: A simulation study comparing analytic and bootstrap methods

A frequent topic of psychological research is the estimation of the correlation between two variables from a sample that underwent a selection process based on a third variable. Due to indirect range restriction, the sample correlation is a biased estimator of the population correlation, and a correction formula is used. In the past, bootstrap standard error and confidence intervals for the corrected correlations were examined with normal data. The present study proposes a large-sample estimate (an analytic method) for the standard error, and a corresponding confidence interval for the corrected correlation. Monte Carlo simulation studies involving both normal and non-normal data were conducted to examine the empirical performance of the bootstrap and analytic methods. Results indicated that with both normal and non-normal data, the bootstrap standard error and confidence interval were generally accurate across simulation conditions (restricted sample size, selection ratio, and population correlations) and outperformed estimates of the analytic method. However, with certain combinations of distribution type and model conditions, the analytic method has an advantage, offering reasonable estimates of the standard error and confidence interval without resorting to the bootstrap procedure's computer-intensive approach. We provide SAS code for the simulation studies.     

Pairwise comparisons of trimmed means for two or more groups

The paper takes up the problem of performing all pairwise comparisons amongJ independent groups based on 20% trimmed means. Currently, a method that stands out is the percentile-t bootstrap method where the bootstrap is used to estimate the quantiles of a Studentized maximum modulus distribution when all pairs of population trimmed means are equal. However, a concern is that in simulations, the actual probability of one or more Type I errors can drop well below the nominal level when sample sizes are small. A practical issue is whether a method can be found that corrects this problem while maintaining the positive features of the percentile-t bootstrap. Three new methods are considered here, one of which achieves the desired goal. Another method, which takes advantage of theoretical results by Singh (1998), performs almost as well but is not recommended when the smallest sample size drops below 15. In some situations, however, it gives substantially shorter confidence intervals.     

Four bootstrap confidence intervals for the binomial-error model

Confidence intervals for the mean function of the true proportion score ( _x ), where andx respectively denote the true proportion and observed test scores, can be approximated by the Efron, Bayesian, and parametric empirical Bayes (PEB) bootstrap procedures. The similarity of results yielded by all the bootstrap methods suggests the following: the unidentifiability problem of the prior distributiong() can be bypassed with respect to the construction of confidence intervals for the mean function, and a beta distribution forg() is a reasonable assumption for the test scores in compliance with a negative hypergeometric distribution. The PEB bootstrap, which reflects the construction of Morris intervals, is introduced for computing predictive confidence bands for x. It is noted that the effect of test reliability on the precision of interval estimates varies with the two types of confidence statements concerned.The Authors are indebted to the Editor and anonymous reviewers for constructive suggestions and comments. The authors wish to thank Min-Te Chao and Cheng-Der Fuh for some useful suggestions at earlier stages of writing this paper.