Cited by 3,060Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

Effect size measures for mediation models: Quantitative strategies for communicating indirect effects.

Preacher, Kristopher J., Kelley, Ken·2011·Psychological Methods

Abstract

The statistical analysis of mediation effects has become an indispensable tool for helping scientists investigate processes thought to be causal. Yet, in spite of many recent advances in the estimation and testing of mediation effects, little attention has been given to methods for communicating effect size and the practical importance of those effect sizes. Our goals in this article are to (a) outline some general desiderata for effect size measures, (b) describe current methods of expressing effect size and practical importance for mediation, (c) use the desiderata to evaluate these methods, and (d) develop new methods to communicate effect size in the context of mediation analysis. The first new effect size index we describe is a residual-based index that quantifies the amount of variance explained in both the mediator and the outcome. The second new effect size index quantifies the indirect effect as the proportion of the maximum possible indirect effect that could have been obtained, given the scales of the variables involved. We supplement our discussion by offering easy-to-use R tools for the numerical and visual communication of effect size for mediation effects.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0022658

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Preacher, K. J., & Kelley, K.
Affiliations
  • University of Kansas (US)
  • University of Notre Dame (US)
Venue
Psychological Methods
Published
2011
Volume
16
Issue
2
Pages
93-115
ISSN
  • 1082-989X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1463
OpenAlex
W2024306642
Cited by
3,060
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 219 · 2025: 245 · 2024: 193 · 2023: 194 · 2022: 202 · 2021: 236 · 2020: 201 · 2019: 226 · 2018: 222 · 2017: 283 · 2016: 274 · 2015: 219 · 2014: 171 · 2013: 109 · 2012: 50
FWCI
95.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Methods (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
effect size measures, mediation analysis, indirect effects, practical significance, causal processes
MeSH terms
Computer Graphics, Humans, Models, Psychological, Psychology, Psychometrics, Regression Analysis, Statistics as Topic, Reproducibility of Results, Models, Statistical, Outcome Assessment, Health Care

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