Cited by 9,406Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesPsychometric Methodologies and TestingStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 63 of the 63 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects

Open access

Abstract

A Monte Carlo study compared 14 methods to test the statistical significance of the intervening variable effect. An intervening variable (mediator) transmits the effect of an independent variable to a dependent variable. The commonly used R. M. Baron and D. A. Kenny (1986) approach has low statistical power. Two methods based on the distribution of the product and 2 difference-in-coefficients methods have the most accurate Type I error rates and greatest statistical power except in 1 important case in which Type I error rates are too high. The best balance of Type I error and statistical power across all cases is the test of the joint significance of the two effects comprising the intervening variable effect.

Overview

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 · 10.1037/1082-989x.7.1.83

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 60 references

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Bentler, 1997, EQS for Windows (Version 5.6)
  2. Cohen, 1988, Statistical power for the behavioral sciences.
  3. Holland, 1988, Causal inference, path analysis, and recursive structural equation models (with discussion)., 449
  4. Joreskog, 1993, LISREL (Version 8.12)
  5. Olkin, 1976, Asymptotic distribution of functions of a correlation matrix., 235
  6. Woodworth, 1928, Dynamic psychology., 111

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 401–500 of 1,251

Metadata

Authors
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V.
Affiliations
Arizona State University (US)
Venue
Psychological Methods
Published
2002
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
83-104
ISSN
  • 1082-989X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1463
OpenAlex
W2068719957
Cited by
9,406
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 271 · 2025: 308 · 2024: 348 · 2023: 360 · 2022: 450 · 2021: 453 · 2020: 446 · 2019: 441 · 2018: 423 · 2017: 463 · 2016: 464 · 2015: 559 · 2014: 610 · 2013: 599 · 2012: 597
FWCI
94.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychological Methods (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
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Keywords
mediation analysis, statistical power, type I error rate, Monte Carlo simulation
MeSH terms
Humans, Models, Psychological

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