CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 208Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesBayesian Modeling and Causal InferenceStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Reversing Arrows in Mediation Models Does Not Distinguish Plausible Models

Thoemmes, Felix·2015·Basic and Applied Social Psychology
DOI 10.1080/01973533.2015.1049351
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Reversing arrows in the classic tri-variate X-M-Y mediation models as a test to check whether one mediation model is superior to another is inadmissible. Presenting evidence that one tri-variate mediation model yields a significant indirect effect, whereas one with some reversed arrows does not, is not proof or even evidence that one model should be preferred. In fact, the significance of the indirect or any other effect can never be used to infer whether one model should be preferred over another, if the models are in the same so-called equivalence class. The practice of running several mediation models with reversed arrows to decide which model to prefer should be abandoned. The only way to choose among equivalent models is through assumptions that are either fulfilled by design features or invoked based on theory. Similar arguments about reversing arrows in mediation models have been made before, but this current work is the first to derive this result analytically for the complete (Markovian) equivalence class of the tri-variate mediation model.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/01973533.2015.1049351

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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.

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

Show all 11 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Chen B., Psychometrika
  2. Thoemmes, F., Liao, W. & Yamasaki, M. (2014). The Markov equivalence class of the mediation model . Paper presented at the annual Modern Modeling Methods Conference, Storrs, CT.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–208 of 208

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Thoemmes, F.
Affiliations
Cornell University (US)
Corresponding author
Thoemmes, Felix
ORCID
Thoemmes, Felix
Venue
Basic and Applied Social Psychology
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2015-07-04
Volume
37
Issue
4
Pages
226-234
ISSN
  • 0197-3533 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-4834
DOI
10.1080/01973533.2015.1049351
OpenAlex
W2155450807
Cited by
208
References
11
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 1
FWCI
16.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Basic and Applied Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Keywords
mediation model, model comparison, equivalence classes, indirect effects, Markov equivalence, causal inference, model selection

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