Cited by 600Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

How and why criteria defining moderators and mediators differ between the Baron & Kenny and MacArthur approaches.

Open access
Chmura Kraemer, Helena, Kiernan, Michaela, Essex, Marilyn, Kupfer, David J.·2008·Health Psychology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: In recognition of the increasingly important role of moderators and mediators in clinical research, clear definitions are sought of the two terms to avoid inconsistent, ambiguous, and possibly misleading results across clinical research studies. DESIGN: The criteria used to define moderators and mediators proposed by the Baron & Kenny approach, which have been long used in social/behavioral research, are directly compared to the criteria proposed by the recent MacArthur approach, which modified the Baron & Kenny criteria. RESULTS: After clarifying the differences in criteria between approaches, the rationale for the modifications is clarified and the implications for the design and interpretation of future studies considered. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers may find modifications introduced in the MacArthur approach more appropriate to their research objectives, particularly if their research might have a direct influence on decision making.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0278-6133.27.2(suppl.).s101

Cites

Statistics

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

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?

  • To show statistically that a variable is a mediator, several conditions must be met.

    “To show statistically that a variable is a mediator, several conditions must be met (Baron & Kenny 1986, Kazdin 2007, Kraemer et al. 2008, MacKinnon et al. 2007).”

    From The Role of Common Factors in Psychotherapy Outcomes (2019) · cites this paper as Kraemer et al. 2008

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 32 · Cited by 600

Authors
Chmura Kraemer, H., Kiernan, M., Essex, M., & Kupfer, D. J.
Affiliations
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
Venue
Health Psychology
Published
2008
Volume
27
Issue
2, Suppl
Pages
S101-S108
ISSN
  • 0278-6133 (ISSN-L)
  • 1930-7810
OpenAlex
W2023501287
Cited by
600
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 34 · 2017: 41 · 2016: 34 · 2015: 33 · 2014: 56 · 2013: 47 · 2012: 40
FWCI
28.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Health Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • MacArthur Network on Development and Psychopathology
  • National Institute on Aging (AG17824)
  • US Department of Veterans Affairs
  • National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (R29 HL60154)
  • American Heart Association
  • National Institute of Mental Health (P50 MH069315)
  • University of Wisconsin-Madison
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
moderators, mediators, mediation analysis, moderation analysis, clinical research, research design
MeSH terms
Behavioral Medicine, Humans, Terminology as Topic, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

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