1 / 24

Mediation Example

Mediation Example. David A. Kenny. Example Dataset. Morse et al. J. of Community Psychology , 1994 treatment  housing contacts  days of stable housing persons randomly assigned to treatment groups. 109 people. Variables in the Example. Treatment — Randomized

hop
Télécharger la présentation

Mediation Example

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Mediation Example David A. Kenny

  2. Example Dataset • Morse et al. • J. of Community Psychology, 1994 • treatment  housing contacts  days of stable housing • persons randomly assigned to treatment groups. • 109 people

  3. Variables in the Example • Treatment — Randomized • 1 = treated (intensive case management) • 0 = treatment as usual • Housing Contacts: total number of contacts per during the 9 months after the intervention began • Stable Housing • days per month with adequate housing (0 to 30) • Averaged over 7 months from month 10 to month 16, after the intervention began

  4. Downloads • Data • SPSS Syntax • SPSS Output

  5. Step 1 REGRESSION /MISSING LISTWISE /STATISTICS COEFF /DEPENDENT stable_housing /METHOD=ENTER treatment.

  6. Step 2 REGRESSION /MISSING LISTWISE /STATISTICS COEFF /DEPENDENT hc9 /METHOD=ENTER treatment.

  7. Steps 3 and 4 REGRESSION /MISSING LISTWISE /STATISTICS COEFF /DEPENDENT stable_housing hc9 /METHOD=ENTER treatment.

  8. Morse et al. Example • Step 1: X  Y • c = 6.558, p = .009 • Step 2: X  M • a = 5.502, p = .013 • Step 3: M (and X)  Y • b = 0.466, p < .001 • Step 4: X (and M)  Y • c′ = 3.992, p = .090

  9. Decomposition of Effects Total Effect = Direct Effect + Indirect Effect c = c′ + ab Example: 6.558 ≈ 3.992 + 2.564 [(5.502)(0.466)]

  10. Estimating the Total Effect (c) The total effect or c can be inferred from direct and indirect effect as c′ + ab. Note that we can determine c or 6.558 from c′ + ab or 3.992 + 2.564 [(5.502)(0.466)] Holds exactly (within the limits of rounding error) in this case.

  11. Percent of Total Effect Mediated 100[ab/c] or equivalently 100[1 - c′/c] Example: 100(2.564/6.558) = 39.1% of the total effect explained

  12. Strategies to Test ab = 0 • Joint significance of a and b • Sobel test • Bootstrapping

  13. Joint Significance Test of a: a = 5.502, p = .013 Test of b: b = 0.466, p < .001

  14. Sobel Test of Mediation Compute the square root of a2sb2 + b2sa2 which is denoted as sab Note that sa and sb are the standard errors of a and b, respectively; ta = a/sa and tb = b/sb. Divide ab by sab and treat that value as a Z. So if ab/sab greater than 1.96 in absolute value, reject the null hypothesis that the indirect effect is zero.

  15. Results a = 5.502 and b = 0.466 sa = 2.182 and sb = 0.100 ab = 2.564; sab = 1.1512 Sobel test Z is 2.218, p = .027 We conclude that the indirect effect is statistically different from zero.

  16. http://quantpsy.org/sobel/sobel.htm

  17. Bootstrapping Structural Equation Modeling programs Hayes & Preacher macro called Indirect www.afhayes.com/spss-sas-and-mplus-macros-and-code.html Download Run the macro indirect Run this syntax INDIRECT y = housing/x = treatment/m = hc9 /boot = 5000/normal 1/bc =1.

  18. Dependent, Independent, and Proposed Mediator Variables: DV = stable_h IV = treatmen MEDS = hc9 Sample size 109 IV to Mediators (a paths) Coeff se t p hc9 5.5017 2.1819 2.5216 .0132 Direct Effects of Mediators on DV (b paths) Coeff se t p hc9 .4664 .1004 4.6462 .0000 Total Effect of IV on DV (c path) Coeff se t p treatmen 6.5580 2.4738 2.6510 .0092 Direct Effect of IV on DV (c' path) Coeff se t p treatmen 3.9922 2.3318 1.7121 .0898 Model Summary for DV Model R-sq Adj R-sq F df1 df2 p .2204 .2057 14.9834 2.0000 106.0000 .0000

  19. NORMAL THEORY TESTS FOR INDIRECT EFFECTS Indirect Effects of IV on DV through Proposed Mediators (ab paths) Effect se Z p TOTAL 2.5659 1.1512 2.2289 .0258 hc9 2.5659 1.1512 2.2289 .0258

  20. BOOTSTRAP RESULTS FOR INDIRECT EFFECTS Indirect Effects of IV on DV through Proposed Mediators (ab paths) Data Boot Bias SE TOTAL 2.5659 2.6049 .0390 1.1357 hc9 2.5659 2.6049 .0390 1.1357 Bias Corrected Confidence Intervals Lower Upper TOTAL .5150 5.0645 hc9 .5150 5.0645 ********************************************************** Level of Confidence for Confidence Intervals: 95 Number of Bootstrap Resamples: 5000

  21. Compare Two Mediators INDIRECT y = stable_h/x = treatment/ m = hc9 ec9 / boot=5000/normal 1/ contrast 1 / bc =1.

  22. Indirect Effects of IV on DV through Proposed Mediators Data Boot Bias SE TOTAL 3.6696 3.6767 .0071 1.3457 hc9 2.3693 2.3991 .0297 1.0330 ec9 1.3003 1.2776 -.0226 .8814 C1 1.0690 1.1214 .0524 1.3701  Bias Corrected Confidence Intervals Lower Upper TOTAL 1.3170 6.6798 hc9 .5801 4.6410 ec9 -.0153 3.5945 C1 -1.6329 3.7939 INDIRECT EFFECT CONTRAST DEFINITIONS: Ind_Eff1 MINUS Ind_Eff2

  23. Hayes’ Process: http://afhayes.com/spss-sas-and-mplus-macros-and-code.html

  24. Thank You! • Thanks to Bob Calsyn for providing the data. • Sensitivity Analyses

More Related