The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Relative Trustworthiness of Inferential Tests of the Indirect Effect in Statistical Mediation Analysis: Does Method Really Matter?
Abstract
A content analysis of 2 years of Psychological Science articles reveals inconsistencies in how researchers make inferences about indirect effects when conducting a statistical mediation analysis. In this study, we examined the frequency with which popularly used tests disagree, whether the method an investigator uses makes a difference in the conclusion he or she will reach, and whether there is a most trustworthy test that can be recommended to balance practical and performance considerations. We found that tests agree much more frequently than they disagree, but disagreements are more common when an indirect effect exists than when it does not. We recommend the bias-corrected bootstrap confidence interval as the most trustworthy test if power is of utmost concern, although it can be slightly liberal in some circumstances. Investigators concerned about Type I errors should choose the Monte Carlo confidence interval or the distribution-of-the-product approach, which rarely disagree. The percentile bootstrap confidence interval is a good compromise test.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 · Cited by 91,532
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/brm.40.3.879 · Cited by 34,117
Self-citationSPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004) · Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers · doi:10.3758/bf03206553 · Cited by 17,383
Self-citationAsymptotic Confidence Intervals for Indirect Effects in Structural Equation Models
Sobel, M. E. (1982) · Sociological Methodology · doi:10.2307/270723 · Cited by 12,810
Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations.
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.7.4.422 · Cited by 11,335
Addressing Moderated Mediation Hypotheses: Theory, Methods, and Prescriptions
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007) · Multivariate Behavioral Research · doi:10.1080/00273170701341316 · Cited by 9,973
Self-citationA comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.7.1.83 · Cited by 9,406
Confidence Limits for the Indirect Effect: Distribution of the Product and Resampling Methods
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004) · Multivariate Behavioral Research · doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr3901_4 · Cited by 7,806
Introduction to Statistical Mediation Analysis
MacKinnon, D. P. (2012) · doi:10.4324/9780203809556 · Cited by 5,618
Required sample size to detect the mediated effect
Fritz, M. S., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2007) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01882.x · Cited by 4,810
Research works printed but not linked: 23
- 10.1214/aoms/1177730442 · DOI
- 10.1080/00273171.2010.498292 · DOI
- 10.1037/a0025626 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.1 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1080/00273171.2012.640596 · DOI
- 10.1177/0956797611411585 · DOI
- Hayes A. F., 2013, Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach
- 10.3758/BF03192961 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1177/0956797611417261 · DOI
- 10.1177/0956797611423670 · DOI
- 10.1002/9780470561119.socpsy001004 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.3758/BF03192993 · DOI
- Long J. S., 2000, The American Statistician, 54, 217, 10.1080/00031305.2000.10474549 · DOI
- 10.3758/BF03193007 · DOI
- 10.1177/0956797611429132 · DOI
- Muthén L. K., 2011, Mplus user’s guide
- 10.1177/0956797611414727 · DOI
- 10.1177/0956797611435980 · DOI
- 10.1177/0956797611420882 · DOI
- 10.1177/0956797611407207 · DOI
- 10.1177/0956797611434590 · DOI
- 10.3758/s13428-011-0076-x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/a0025815 · DOI
Cited by
An index and test of linear moderated mediation
Hayes, A. F. (2015) · Multivariate Behavioral Research · doi:10.1080/00273171.2014.962683 · Cited by 3,979
Self-citationStatistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable
Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (2014) · British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology · doi:10.1111/bmsp.12028 · Cited by 3,403
Self-citationCommon Beliefs and Reality About PLS: Comments on Rönkkö and Evermann (2013)
Henseler, J., Dijkstra, T. K., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Diamantopoulos, A., Straub, D. W., Ketchen, D. J., Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., & Calantone, R. J. (2014) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428114526928 · Cited by 3,332
Hayes, A. F., & Rockwood, N. J. (2017) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.brat.2016.11.001 · Cited by 2,350
Self-citationDetermining power and sample size for simple and complex mediation models
Schoemann, A. M., Boulton, A. J., & Short, S. D. (2017) · Social Psychological and Personality Science · doi:10.1177/1948550617715068 · Cited by 1,837
Metadata
- Authors
- Hayes, A. F., & Scharkow, M.
- Venue
- Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2013-08-16
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1918-1927
- ISSN
- 0956-7976 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9280
- OpenAlex
- W2129484434
- Cited by
- 2,387
- References
- 14
- FWCI
- 61.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Relative Trustworthiness of Inferential Tests of the Indirect Effect in Statistical Mediation Analysis: Does Method Really Matter? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0956797613480187
- The paper
- Hayes, A. F., & Scharkow, M. (2013). The Relative Trustworthiness of Inferential Tests of the Indirect Effect in Statistical Mediation Analysis: Does Method Really Matter? Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613480187
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
