Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Comparison of methods for constructing confidence intervals of standardized indirect effects|
|Source:||Cheung, M.W.-L. (2009-05). Comparison of methods for constructing confidence intervals of standardized indirect effects. Behavior Research Methods 41 (2) : 425-438. ScholarBank@NUS Repository. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.2.425|
|Abstract:||Mediation models are often used as a means to explain the psychological mechanisms between an independent and a dependent variable in the behavioral and social sciences. A major limitation of the unstandardized indirect effect calculated from raw scores is that it cannot be interpreted as an effect-size measure. In contrast, the standardized indirect effect calculated from standardized scores can be a good candidate as a measure of effect size because it is scale invariant. In the present article, 11 methods for constructing the confidence intervals (CIs) of the standardized indirect effects were evaluated via a computer simulation. These included six Wald CIs, three bootstrap CIs, one likelihood-based CI, and the PRODCLIN CI. The results consistently showed that the percentile bootstrap, the bias-corrected bootstrap, and the likelihood-based approaches had the best coverage probability. Mplus, LISREL, and Mx syntax were included to facilitate the use of these preferred methods in applied settings. Future issues on the use of the standardized indirect effects are discussed. © 2009 The Psychonomic Society, Inc.|
|Source Title:||Behavior Research Methods|
|Appears in Collections:||Staff Publications|
Show full item record
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
checked on Feb 15, 2018
WEB OF SCIENCETM
checked on Jan 29, 2018
checked on Feb 12, 2018
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.