Cited by 55Statistical Methods and Bayesian InferencePsychometric Methodologies and TestingAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques

Accuracy of estimates and statistical power for testing meditation in latent growth curve modeling

Open access
Cheong, JeeWon·2011·Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal

Abstract

The latent growth curve modeling (LGCM) approach has been increasingly utilized to investigate longitudinal mediation. However, little is known about the accuracy of the estimates and statistical power when mediation is evaluated in the LGCM framework. A simulation study was conducted to address these issues under various conditions including sample size, effect size of mediated effect, number of measurement occasions, and R 2 of measured variables. In general, the results showed that relatively large samples were needed to accurately estimate the mediated effects and to have adequate statistical power, when testing mediation in the LGCM framework. Guidelines for designing studies to examine longitudinal mediation and ways to improve the accuracy of the estimates and statistical power were discussed.

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 · 10.1080/10705511.2011.557334

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • A sample size of at least 150 was necessary for the more complex models.

    “Based on previous studies with a similar design, it was determined that a sample size of at least 150 was necessary for the more complex models (Cheong, 2011; Sunnhed et al., 2022).”

    From Distress tolerance as a mediator of mindfulness-based intervention for anxiety and depression: Evidence from two randomized controlled trials (2024) · cites this paper as Cheong, 2011

    The Discussion (page unavailable) says that more complex latent-factor models might require larger samples. But the Method tests sample sizes of 100 and 200, not 150, and the Results give power requirements that vary by condition. The paper does not establish 150 as a necessary minimum. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A minimum of 150 participants was required for Study 2 based on sample size calculation.

    “The sample size calculation was identical to Study 1; a minimum of 150 participants was required (Cheong, 2011; Sunnhed et al., 2022).”

    From Distress tolerance as a mediator of mindfulness-based intervention for anxiety and depression: Evidence from two randomized controlled trials (2024) · cites this paper as Cheong, 2011

    The Method section lists simulated sample sizes of 100, 200, 500, 1,000, 2,000, and 5,000; it does not calculate a 150-participant minimum. The Results discuss power requirements for the paper’s mediation models, but our copy does not address Study 2 or its sample-size calculation (searched for “150 participants” and “Study 2”). (LLM, conf=0.73)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 52 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cheong, J.
Affiliations
University of Pittsburgh (US)
Corresponding author
Cheong, JeeWon
Venue
Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal
Published
2011-04-06
Volume
18
Issue
2
Pages
195-211
ISSN
  • 1070-5511 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-8007
OpenAlex
W2034989530
Cited by
55
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 2
FWCI
2.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (R01AA013117)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA009757, R01DA007356, R37DA009757)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
Keywords
latent growth curve models, longitudinal mediation, statistical power, estimation accuracy, sample size, indirect effects

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