| Abstract: | Models specifying indirect effects (or mediation) and structural equation modeling are both popular in the social sciences. Yet relatively little research has compared methods that test for indirect effects among latent variables and provided precise estimates of the effectiveness of different methods. This simulation study provides an extensive comparison of methods for constructing confidence intervals and for making inferences about indirect effects with latent variables. We compared the percentile (PC) bootstrap, bias-corrected (BC) bootstrap, bias-corrected accelerated (BC a ) bootstrap, likelihood-based confidence intervals (Neale & Miller, 1997), partial posterior predictive (Biesanz, Falk, and Savalei, 2010), and joint significance tests based on Wald tests or likelihood ratio tests. All models included three reflective latent variables representing the independent, dependent, and mediating variables. The design included the following fully crossed conditions: (a) sample size: 100, 200, and 500; (b) number of indicators per latent variable: 3 versus 5; (c) reliability per set of indicators: .7 versus .9; (d) and 16 different path combinations for the indirect effect (α = 0, .14, .39, or .59; and β = 0, .14, .39, or .59). Simulations were performed using a WestGrid cluster of 1680 3.06GHz Intel Xeon processors running R and OpenMx. Results based on 1,000 replications per cell and 2,000 resamples per bootstrap method indicated that the BC and BC a bootstrap methods have inflated Type I error rates. Likelihood-based confidence intervals and the PC bootstrap emerged as methods that adequately control Type I error and have good coverage rates. |
