Cited by 1,965Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesPsychometric Methodologies and TestingStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference

Testing Mediation and Suppression Effects of Latent Variables: Bootstrapping With Structural Equation Models

Cheung, Gordon W., Lau, Rebecca S.·2008·Organizational Research Methods

Abstract

Because of the importance of mediation studies, researchers have been continuously searching for the best statistical test for mediation effect. The approaches that have been most commonly employed include those that use zero-order and partial correlation, hierarchical regression models, and structural equation modeling (SEM). This study extends MacKinnon and colleagues (MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffmann, West, & Sheets, 2002; MacKinnon, Lockwood, & Williams, 2004, MacKinnon, Warsi, & Dwyer, 1995) works by conducting a simulation that examines the distribution of mediation and suppression effects of latent variables with SEM, and the properties of confidence intervals developed from eight different methods. Results show that SEM provides unbiased estimates of mediation and suppression effects, and that the bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals perform best in testing for mediation and suppression effects. Steps to implement the recommended procedures with Amos are presented.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1094428107300343

Cites

46 of 46 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.

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?

  • The bootstrapped confidence intervals for the model did not materially alter any of the conclusions: all regression weights reported retained their significance, with the exception of the link between conservatism and acceptance of vaccinations, which failed to reach conventional significance levels.

    “The bootstrapped confidence intervals for the model in Figure 2 did not materially alter any of the conclusions: All regression weights reported in the figure retained their significance, with the exception of the link between conservatism and acceptance of vaccinations, which failed to reach conventional significance levels ().”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cheung, G. W., & Lau, R. S.
Affiliations
  • Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK)
  • Virginia Tech (US)
Venue
Organizational Research Methods
Published
2007-07-23
Volume
11
Issue
2
Pages
296-325
ISSN
  • 1094-4281 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-7425
OpenAlex
W2132605910
Cited by
1,965
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 107 · 2025: 135 · 2024: 134 · 2023: 184 · 2022: 164 · 2021: 175 · 2020: 141 · 2019: 103 · 2018: 104 · 2017: 107 · 2016: 121 · 2015: 112 · 2014: 110 · 2013: 91 · 2012: 71
FWCI
19.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Organizational Research Methods (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Keywords
mediating effect, suppression effect, latent variables, structural equation modeling, bootstrap confidence intervals, bias-corrected bootstrap, simulation study, Amos

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