Mediation analysis allowing for exposure-mediator interactions and causal interpretation: theoretical assumptions and implementation with SAS and SPSS macros

Linda Valeri, Tyler J Vanderweele, Linda Valeri, Tyler J Vanderweele

Abstract

Mediation analysis is a useful and widely employed approach to studies in the field of psychology and in the social and biomedical sciences. The contributions of this article are several-fold. First we seek to bring the developments in mediation analysis for nonlinear models within the counterfactual framework to the psychology audience in an accessible format and compare the sorts of inferences about mediation that are possible in the presence of exposure-mediator interaction when using a counterfactual versus the standard statistical approach. Second, the work by VanderWeele and Vansteelandt (2009, 2010) is extended here to allow for dichotomous mediators and count outcomes. Third, we provide SAS and SPSS macros to implement all of these mediation analysis techniques automatically, and we compare the types of inferences about mediation that are allowed by a variety of software macros.

(PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2013 APA, all rights reserved).

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Mediation model in Baron and Kenny 1986 paper.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Causal Diagram for Mediation and Confounding

References

    1. Alwin DF, Hauser RM. The decomposition of effects in path analysis. American Sociological Review. 1975;40:37–47.
    1. Ananth CV, VanderWeele TJ. Placental abruption and perinatal mortality with preterm delivery as a mediator: disentangling direct and indirect effects. American Journal of Epidemiology. 2011;174:99–108.
    1. Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1986;51:1173–1182.
    1. Cole DA, Maxwell SE. Testing mediational models with longitudinal data: Questions and tips in the use of structural equation modeling. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 2003;112:558–577.
    1. Hafeman DM, VanderWeele TJ. Alternative assumptions for the identification of direct and indirect effects. Epidemiology. 2011;22:753–764.
    1. Huang B, Sivaganesan S, Succop P, Goodman E. Statistical assessment of mediational effects for logistic mediational models. Statistics in Medicine. 2004;23:2713–2728.
    1. Hyman HH. Survey design and analysis: Principles, cases and procedures. Glencoe, IL: Free Press; 1955.
    1. Imai K, Keele L, Yamamoto T. Identification, inference, and sensitivity analysis for causal mediation effects. Statistical Science. 2009;25:5171. doi: 10.1214/10-STS321..
    1. Imai K, Keele L, Tingley D. A General Approach to Causal Mediation Analysis. Psychological Methods. 2010a;15(4):309–334.
    1. Imai K, Keele L, Tingley D, Yamamoto T. Causal Mediation Analysis Using R. In: Vinod HD, editor. Advances in Social Science Research Using R. New York: Springer; 2010b. pp. 129–154.
    1. James LR, Brett JM. Mediators, moderators, and tests for mediation. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1984;69:307321.
    1. Jo B. Causal inference in randomized experiments with mediational processes. Psychological Methods. 2008;13:314–336.
    1. Joffe M, Small D, Hsu C-Y. Defining and estimating intervention effects for groups that will develop an auxiliary outcome. Statistical Science. 2007;22:74–97. doi: 10.1214/088342306000000655..
    1. Judd CM, Kenny DA. Process analysis: estimating mediation in treatment evaluations. Evaluation Review. 1981;5:602–619.
    1. Kraemer HC, Kiernan M, Essex M, Kupfer DJ. How and why the criteria defining moderators and mediators differ between the Baron & Kenny and MacArthur Approaches. Health Psychology. 2008;27(2 Suppl):S101–S108.
    1. MacKinnon DP, Dwyer JH. Estimating mediated effects in prevention studies. Evaluation Review. 1993;17:144–158.
    1. MacKinnon DP. Introduction to Statistical Mediation Analysis. New York: Erlbaum; 2008.
    1. Muller D, Yzerbyt V, Judd CM. Adjusting for a mediator in models with two crossed treatment variables. Organizational Research Methods. 2008;11:224–240.
    1. Muthén B. Applications of causally defined direct and indirect effects in mediation analysis using SEM in Mplus. 2012 Submitted for publication.
    1. Pearl J. Proceedings of the Seventeenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann; 2001. Direct and Indirect Effects; pp. 411–420. é.
    1. Preacher KJ, Hayes AF. SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers. 2004;36:717–731.
    1. Preacher KJ, Rucker DD, Hayes AF. Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research. 2007;42(1):185–227.
    1. Robins JM. Semantics of causal DAG models and the identification of direct and indirect effects. In: Green P, Hjort NL, Richardson S, editors. Highly Structured Stochastic Systems. Oxford University Press; New York: 2003. pp. 70–81.
    1. Robins JM, Greenland S. Identifiability and exchangeability for direct and indirect effects. Epidemiology. 1992;3:143–155.
    1. Robins JM, Richardson TS. Alternative graphical causal models and the identification of direct effects. In: Shrout P, editor. Causality and Psychopathology: Finding the Determinants of Disorders and Their Cures. Oxford University Press; 2010.
    1. Shpitser I, VanderWeele TJ. A complete graphical criterion for the adjustment formula in mediation analysis. International Journal of Biostatistics, 7, Article. 2011;16:1–24.
    1. Sobel ME. Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equations models. In: Leinhart S, editor. Sociological methodology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1982. pp. 290–312.
    1. Sobel ME. Identification of causal parameters in randomized studies with mediating variables. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics. 2008;33:230–251.
    1. VanderWeele TJ, Vansteelandt S. Conceptual issues concerning mediation, interventions and composition. Statistics and Its Interface. 2009;2(4):457–468.
    1. VanderWeele TJ, Vansteelandt S. Odds Ratios for Mediation Analysis for a Dichotomous Outcome. Am J Epidemiol. 2010;172(12):1339–1348. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwq332.
    1. VanderWeele TJ. Bias formulas for sensitivity analysis for direct and indirect effects. Epidemiology. 2010;21:540–551.
    1. VanderWeele T. Causal Mediation Analysis with Survival Data. Epidemiology. 2011;22:575581.
    1. VanderWeele TJ. A three-way decomposition of a total effect into direct, indirect, and interactive effects. Epidemiology. 2012 in press.
    1. Yzerbyt V, Muller D, Judd CM. Adjusting researchers’ approach to adjustment: On the use of covariates when testing interactions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2004;40:424–431.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbeidspartnere

Medisinsk tilstand

Legemiddelintervensjoner

3
Abonnere