4.4 Article

Bias in cross-sectional analyses of longitudinal mediation

Journal

PSYCHOLOGICAL METHODS
Volume 12, Issue 1, Pages 23-44

Publisher

AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.23

Keywords

mediation; direct effect; indirect effect; cross-sectional designs; longitudinal designs

Funding

  1. EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH & HUMAN DEVELOPMENT [P30HD015052] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH [R01MH064650] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  3. NICHD NIH HHS [P30HD15052] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NIMH NIH HHS [R01 MH64650] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Most empirical tests of mediation utilize cross-sectional data despite the fact that mediation consists of causal processes that unfold over time. The authors considered the possibility that longitudinal mediation might occur under either of two different models of change: (a) an autoregressive model or (b) a random effects model. For both models, the authors demonstrated that cross-sectional approaches to mediation typically generate substantially biased estimates of longitudinal parameters even under the ideal conditions when mediation is complete. In longitudinal models where variable M completely mediates the effect of X on Y, cross-sectional estimates of the direct effect of X on Y, the indirect effect of X on Y through M, and the proportion of the total effect mediated by M are often highly misleading.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available