Cited by 918Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceEvaluation and Performance Assessment

A General Model for Testing Mediation and Moderation Effects

Open access
Fairchild, Amanda J., MacKinnon, David P.·2009·Prevention Science

Abstract

This paper describes methods for testing mediation and moderation effects in a dataset, both together and separately. Investigations of this kind are especially valuable in prevention research to obtain information on the process by which a program achieves its effects and whether the program is effective for subgroups of individuals. A general model that simultaneously estimates mediation and moderation effects is presented, and the utility of combining the effects into a single model is described. Possible effects of interest in the model are explained, as are statistical methods to assess these effects. The methods are further illustrated in a hypothetical prevention program example.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11121-008-0109-6

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Fairchild AJ 2008 A comparison of frameworks for the joint analysis of mediation and moderation effects Unpublished doctoral dissertation Arizona State University Tempe

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fairchild, A. J., & MacKinnon, D. P.
Affiliations
  • University of South Carolina (US)
  • Arizona State University (US)
Corresponding author
Fairchild, Amanda J.
Venue
Prevention Science
Published
2008-11-12
Volume
10
Issue
2
Pages
87-99
ISSN
  • 1389-4986 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-6695
OpenAlex
W2092953046
Cited by
918
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 42 · 2025: 49 · 2024: 58 · 2023: 73 · 2022: 68 · 2021: 82 · 2020: 70 · 2019: 69 · 2018: 61 · 2017: 59 · 2016: 61 · 2015: 67 · 2014: 49 · 2013: 41 · 2012: 24
FWCI
13.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Prevention Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Scholar Commons (University of South Carolina) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA009757)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
Keywords
mediation analysis, moderation analysis, prevention programs, program effectiveness, subgroup differences
MeSH terms
Humans, Models, Theoretical, Preventive Medicine, Research

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