Cited by 4,188Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 49 of the 52 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Equivalence of the Mediation, Confounding and Suppression Effect

Open access
MacKinnon, David P., Krull, Jennifer L., Lockwood, Chondra M.·2000·Prevention Science

Abstract

This paper describes the statistical similarities among mediation, confounding, and suppression. Each is quantified by measuring the change in the relationship between an independent and a dependent variable after adding a third variable to the analysis. Mediation and confounding are identical statistically and can be distinguished only on conceptual grounds. Methods to determine the confidence intervals for confounding and suppression effects are proposed based on methods developed for mediated effects. Although the statistical estimation of effects and standard errors is the same, there are important conceptual differences among the three types of effects.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1023/a:1026595011371

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 52 references

3 of the 52 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Hamilton, D. (1987). Sometimes R2 > r2y1 + r2y2. American Statistician, 41, 129–132.
  2. Horst, P. (1941). The role of predictor variables which are independent of the criterion. Social Science Research Council Bulletin, 48, 431–436.
  3. Last, J. M. (1988).Adictionary of epidemiology. NewYork: Oxford Unversity Press.
  4. Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1955). Interpretation of statistical relations as a research operation. In P. F. Lazardsfeld, & M. Rosenberg (Eds.), The language of social research:Areader in the methodology of social research (pp. 115–125). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 401–500 of 1,028

Metadata

Authors
MacKinnon, D. P., Krull, J. L., & Lockwood, C. M.
Affiliations
Arizona State University (US)
Corresponding author
MacKinnon, David P.
Venue
Prevention Science
Published
2000-12
Volume
1
Issue
4
Pages
173-181
ISSN
  • 1389-4986 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-6695
OpenAlex
W1715619412
Cited by
4,188
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 403 · 2025: 291 · 2024: 253 · 2023: 278 · 2022: 306 · 2021: 271 · 2020: 275 · 2019: 210 · 2018: 205 · 2017: 190 · 2016: 197 · 2015: 166 · 2014: 215 · 2013: 167 · 2012: 169
FWCI
8.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Prevention Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA 09757, R01DA009757, R37DA009757)
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, confounding, suppression effect, third variable, causal inference, confidence intervals, standard errors, effect estimation
MeSH terms
Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Reproducibility of Results, Models, Statistical, Bias, Causality, Confounding Factors, Epidemiologic, Effect Modifier, Epidemiologic, Confidence Intervals, Least-Squares Analysis

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