CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 4,143Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferencePhilosophy of Biology and Scientific Explanation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 65 of the 65 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A general approach to causal mediation analysis.

Open access
Imai, Kosuke, Keele, Luke, Tingley, Dustin·2010·Psychological Methods
DOI 10.1037/a0020761
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Traditionally in the social sciences, causal mediation analysis has been formulated, understood, and implemented within the framework of linear structural equation models. We argue and demonstrate that this is problematic for 3 reasons: the lack of a general definition of causal mediation effects independent of a particular statistical model, the inability to specify the key identification assumption, and the difficulty of extending the framework to nonlinear models. In this article, we propose an alternative approach that overcomes these limitations. Our approach is general because it offers the definition, identification, estimation, and sensitivity analysis of causal mediation effects without reference to any specific statistical model. Further, our approach explicitly links these 4 elements closely together within a single framework. As a result, the proposed framework can accommodate linear and nonlinear relationships, parametric and nonparametric models, continuous and discrete mediators, and various types of outcome variables. The general definition and identification result also allow us to develop sensitivity analysis in the context of commonly used models, which enables applied researchers to formally assess the robustness of their empirical conclusions to violations of the key assumption. We illustrate our approach by applying it to the Job Search Intervention Study. We also offer easy-to-use software that implements all our proposed methods.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0020761

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

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

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 65 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Imai, K., Keele, L., & Tingley, D.
Affiliations
  • Princeton University (US)
  • The Ohio State University (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Psychological Methods
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2010
Volume
15
Issue
4
Pages
309-334
ISSN
  • 1082-989X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1463
DOI
10.1037/a0020761
OpenAlex
W2010143351
Cited by
4,143
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 736 · 2025: 494 · 2024: 385 · 2023: 352 · 2022: 353 · 2021: 327 · 2020: 317 · 2019: 232 · 2018: 218 · 2017: 186 · 2016: 146 · 2015: 129 · 2014: 110 · 2013: 64 · 2012: 54
FWCI
42.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Psychological Methods (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
National Science Foundation (SES-0918968)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy of Biology and Scientific Explanation
Keywords
causal mediation analysis, identification assumptions, sensitivity analysis, model-free estimation
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Sensitivity and Specificity, Social Sciences, Models, Statistical, Causality, Linear 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