Cited by 89Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

Statistical assessment of mediational effects for logistic mediational models

Huang, Bin, Sivaganesan, Siva, Succop, Paul, Goodman, Elizabeth·2004·Statistics in Medicine

Abstract

The concept of mediation has broad applications in medical health studies. Although the statistical assessment of a mediational effect under the normal assumption has been well established in linear structural equation models (SEM), it has not been extended to the general case where normality is not a usual assumption. In this paper, we propose to extend the definition of mediational effects through causal inference. The new definition is consistent with that in linear SEM and does not rely on the assumption of normality. Here, we focus our attention on the logistic mediation model, where all variables involved are binary. Three approaches to the estimation of mediational effects—Delta method, bootstrap, and Bayesian modelling via Monte Carlo simulation are investigated. Simulation studies are used to examine the behaviour of the three approaches. Measured by 95 per cent confidence interval (CI) coverage rate and root mean square error (RMSE) criteria, it was found that the Bayesian method using a non‐informative prior outperformed both bootstrap and the Delta methods, particularly for small sample sizes. Case studies are presented to demonstrate the application of the proposed method to public health research using a nationally representative database. Extending the proposed method to other types of mediational model and to multiple mediators are also discussed. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/sim.1847

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Huang, B., Sivaganesan, S., Succop, P., & Goodman, E.
Affiliations
  • Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (US)
  • University of Cincinnati (US)
  • Brandeis University (US)
Corresponding author
Huang, Bin
Venue
Statistics in Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2004-08-12
Volume
23
Issue
17
Pages
2713-2728
ISSN
  • 0277-6715 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0258
OpenAlex
W2127336501
Cited by
89
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 3
FWCI
1.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Statistics in Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (P01- HD31921, P01HD031921)
  • Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
Keywords
mediation analysis, causal inference, binary outcomes, non-normal data, bootstrapping, delta method, Bayesian estimation, Monte Carlo simulation, confidence interval coverage, small sample size, multiple mediators
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Bayes Theorem, Computer Simulation, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Depression, Female, Humans, Monte Carlo Method, Public Health, Social Class, Logistic Models

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review