Journal•ISSN: 1082-989X
Psychological Methods
American Psychological Association
About: Psychological Methods is an academic journal published by American Psychological Association. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): Medicine & Statistics. It has an ISSN identifier of 1082-989X. Over the lifetime, 1009 publications have been published receiving 230311 citations.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
TL;DR: 2 general approaches that come highly recommended: maximum likelihood (ML) and Bayesian multiple imputation (MI) are presented and may eventually extend the ML and MI methods that currently represent the state of the art.
Abstract: Statistical procedures for missing data have vastly improved, yet misconception and unsound practice still abound. The authors frame the missing-data problem, review methods, offer advice, and raise issues that remain unresolved. They clear up common misunderstandings regarding the missing at random (MAR) concept. They summarize the evidence against older procedures and, with few exceptions, discourage their use. They present, in both technical and practical language, 2 general approaches that come highly recommended: maximum likelihood (ML) and Bayesian multiple imputation (MI). Newer developments are discussed, including some for dealing with missing data that are not MAR. Although not yet in the mainstream, these procedures may eventually extend the ML and MI methods that currently represent the state of the art.
10,568 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the sensitivity of maximum likelihood (ML), generalized least squares (GLS), and asymptotic distribution-free (ADF)-based fit indices to model misspecification, under conditions that varied sample size and distribution.
Abstract: This study evaluated the sensitivity of maximum likelihood (ML)-, generalized least squares (GLS)-, and asymptotic distribution-free (ADF)-based fit indices to model misspecification, under conditions that varied sample size and distribution. The effect of violating assumptions of asymptotic robustness theory also was examined. Standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR) was the most sensitive index to models with misspecified factor covariance(s), and Tucker-Lewis Index (1973; TLI), Bollen's fit index (1989; BL89), relative noncentrality index (RNI), comparative fit index (CFI), and the MLand GLS-based gamma hat, McDonald's centrality index (1989; Me), and root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) were the most sensitive indices to models with misspecified factor loadings. With ML and GLS methods, we recommend the use of SRMR, supplemented by TLI, BL89, RNI, CFI, gamma hat, Me, or RMSEA (TLI, Me, and RMSEA are less preferable at small sample sizes). With the ADF method, we recommend the use of SRMR, supplemented by TLI, BL89, RNI, or CFI. Finally, most of the ML-based fit indices outperformed those obtained from GLS and ADF and are preferable for evaluating model fit.
9,249 citations
TL;DR: Efron and Tibshirani as discussed by the authors used bootstrap tests to assess mediation, finding that the sampling distribution of the mediated effect is skewed away from 0, and they argued that R. M. Kenny's (1986) recommendation of first testing the X --> Y association for statistical significance should not be a requirement when there is a priori belief that the effect size is small or suppression is a possibility.
Abstract: Mediation is said to occur when a causal effect of some variable X on an outcome Y is explained by some intervening variable M. The authors recommend that with small to moderate samples, bootstrap methods (B. Efron & R. Tibshirani, 1993) be used to assess mediation. Bootstrap tests are powerful because they detect that the sampling distribution of the mediated effect is skewed away from 0. They argue that R. M. Baron and D. A. Kenny's (1986) recommendation of first testing the X --> Y association for statistical significance should not be a requirement when there is a priori belief that the effect size is small or suppression is a possibility. Empirical examples and computer setups for bootstrap analyses are provided.
8,940 citations
TL;DR: A Monte Carlo study compared 14 methods to test the statistical significance of the intervening variable effect and found two methods based on the distribution of the product and 2 difference-in-coefficients methods have the most accurate Type I error rates and greatest statistical power.
Abstract: A Monte Carlo study compared 14 methods to test the statistical significance of the intervening variable effect. An intervening variable (mediator) transmits the effect of an independent variable to a dependent variable. The commonly used R. M. Baron and D. A. Kenny (1986) approach has low statistical power. Two methods based on the distribution of the product and 2 difference-in-coefficients methods have the most accurate Type I error rates and greatest statistical power except in 1 important case in which Type I error rates are too high. The best balance of Type I error and statistical power across all cases is the test of the joint significance of the two effects comprising the intervening variable effect.
8,629 citations
TL;DR: In this article, a framework for hypothesis testing and power analysis in the assessment of fit of covariance structure models is presented, where the value of confidence intervals for fit indices is emphasized.
Abstract: A framework for hypothesis testing and power analysis in the assessment of fit of covariance structure models is presented. We emphasize the value of confidence intervals for fit indices, and we stress the relationship of confidence intervals to a framework for hypothesis testing. The approach allows for testing null hypotheses of not-good fit, reversing the role of the null hypothesis in conventional tests of model fit, so that a significant result provides strong support for good fit. The approach also allows for direct estimation of power, where effect size is defined in terms of a null and alternative value of the root-mean-square error of approximation fit index proposed by J. H. Steiger and J. M. Lind (1980). It is also feasible to determine minimum sample size required to achieve a given level of power for any test of fit in this framework. Computer programs and examples are provided for power analyses and calculation of minimum sample sizes.
8,401 citations