Matching Items (4)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: Psychology--Statistical methods.
- Creators: Green, Samuel
- Creators: Millsap, Roger
Description
Including a covariate can increase power to detect an effect between two variables. Although previous research has studied power in mediation models, the extent to which the inclusion of a mediator will increase the power to detect a relation between two variables has not been investigated. The first study identified situations where empirical and analytical power of two tests of significance for a single mediator model was greater than power of a bivariate significance test. Results from the first study indicated that including a mediator increased statistical power in small samples with large effects and in large samples with small effects. Next, a study was conducted to assess when power was greater for a significance test for a two mediator model as compared with power of a bivariate significance test. Results indicated that including two mediators increased power in small samples when both specific mediated effects were large and in large samples when both specific mediated effects were small. Implications of the results and directions for future research are then discussed.
ContributorsO'Rourke, Holly Patricia (Author) / Mackinnon, David P (Thesis advisor) / Enders, Craig K. (Committee member) / Millsap, Roger (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2013
Description
A simulation study was conducted to explore the influence of partial loading invariance and partial intercept invariance on the latent mean comparison of the second-order factor within a higher-order confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) model. Noninvariant loadings or intercepts were generated to be at one of the two levels or both levels for a second-order CFA model. The numbers and directions of differences in noninvariant loadings or intercepts were also manipulated, along with total sample size and effect size of the second-order factor mean difference. Data were analyzed using correct and incorrect specifications of noninvariant loadings and intercepts. Results summarized across the 5,000 replications in each condition included Type I error rates and powers for the chi-square difference test and the Wald test of the second-order factor mean difference, estimation bias and efficiency for this latent mean difference, and means of the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA).
When the model was correctly specified, no obvious estimation bias was observed; when the model was misspecified by constraining noninvariant loadings or intercepts to be equal, the latent mean difference was overestimated if the direction of the difference in loadings or intercepts of was consistent with the direction of the latent mean difference, and vice versa. Increasing the number of noninvariant loadings or intercepts resulted in larger estimation bias if these noninvariant loadings or intercepts were constrained to be equal. Power to detect the latent mean difference was influenced by estimation bias and the estimated variance of the difference in the second-order factor mean, in addition to sample size and effect size. Constraining more parameters to be equal between groups—even when unequal in the population—led to a decrease in the variance of the estimated latent mean difference, which increased power somewhat. Finally, RMSEA was very sensitive for detecting misspecification due to improper equality constraints in all conditions in the current scenario, including the nonzero latent mean difference, but SRMR did not increase as expected when noninvariant parameters were constrained.
When the model was correctly specified, no obvious estimation bias was observed; when the model was misspecified by constraining noninvariant loadings or intercepts to be equal, the latent mean difference was overestimated if the direction of the difference in loadings or intercepts of was consistent with the direction of the latent mean difference, and vice versa. Increasing the number of noninvariant loadings or intercepts resulted in larger estimation bias if these noninvariant loadings or intercepts were constrained to be equal. Power to detect the latent mean difference was influenced by estimation bias and the estimated variance of the difference in the second-order factor mean, in addition to sample size and effect size. Constraining more parameters to be equal between groups—even when unequal in the population—led to a decrease in the variance of the estimated latent mean difference, which increased power somewhat. Finally, RMSEA was very sensitive for detecting misspecification due to improper equality constraints in all conditions in the current scenario, including the nonzero latent mean difference, but SRMR did not increase as expected when noninvariant parameters were constrained.
ContributorsLiu, Yixing (Author) / Thompson, Marilyn (Thesis advisor) / Green, Samuel (Committee member) / Levy, Roy (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2016
Description
Researchers who conduct longitudinal studies are inherently interested in studying individual and population changes over time (e.g., mathematics achievement, subjective well-being). To answer such research questions, models of change (e.g., growth models) make the assumption of longitudinal measurement invariance. In many applied situations, key constructs are measured by a collection of ordered-categorical indicators (e.g., Likert scale items). To evaluate longitudinal measurement invariance with ordered-categorical indicators, a set of hierarchical models can be sequentially tested and compared. If the statistical tests of measurement invariance fail to be supported for one of the models, it is useful to have a method with which to gauge the practical significance of the differences in measurement model parameters over time. Drawing on studies of latent growth models and second-order latent growth models with continuous indicators (e.g., Kim & Willson, 2014a; 2014b; Leite, 2007; Wirth, 2008), this study examined the performance of a potential sensitivity analysis to gauge the practical significance of violations of longitudinal measurement invariance for ordered-categorical indicators using second-order latent growth models. The change in the estimate of the second-order growth parameters following the addition of an incorrect level of measurement invariance constraints at the first-order level was used as an effect size for measurement non-invariance. This study investigated how sensitive the proposed sensitivity analysis was to different locations of non-invariance (i.e., non-invariance in the factor loadings, the thresholds, and the unique factor variances) given a sufficient sample size. This study also examined whether the sensitivity of the proposed sensitivity analysis depended on a number of other factors including the magnitude of non-invariance, the number of non-invariant indicators, the number of non-invariant occasions, and the number of response categories in the indicators.
ContributorsLiu, Yu, Ph.D (Author) / West, Stephen G. (Thesis advisor) / Tein, Jenn-Yun (Thesis advisor) / Green, Samuel (Committee member) / Grimm, Kevin J. (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2016
Description
In investigating mediating processes, researchers usually use randomized experiments and linear regression or structural equation modeling to determine if the treatment affects the hypothesized mediator and if the mediator affects the targeted outcome. However, randomizing the treatment will not yield accurate causal path estimates unless certain assumptions are satisfied. Since randomization of the mediator may not be plausible for most studies (i.e., the mediator status is not randomly assigned, but self-selected by participants), both the direct and indirect effects may be biased by confounding variables. The purpose of this dissertation is (1) to investigate the extent to which traditional mediation methods are affected by confounding variables and (2) to assess the statistical performance of several modern methods to address confounding variable effects in mediation analysis. This dissertation first reviewed the theoretical foundations of causal inference in statistical mediation analysis, modern statistical analysis for causal inference, and then described different methods to estimate causal direct and indirect effects in the presence of two post-treatment confounders. A large simulation study was designed to evaluate the extent to which ordinary regression and modern causal inference methods are able to obtain correct estimates of the direct and indirect effects when confounding variables that are present in the population are not included in the analysis. Five methods were compared in terms of bias, relative bias, mean square error, statistical power, Type I error rates, and confidence interval coverage to test how robust the methods are to the violation of the no unmeasured confounders assumption and confounder effect sizes. The methods explored were linear regression with adjustment, inverse propensity weighting, inverse propensity weighting with truncated weights, sequential g-estimation, and a doubly robust sequential g-estimation. Results showed that in estimating the direct and indirect effects, in general, sequential g-estimation performed the best in terms of bias, Type I error rates, power, and coverage across different confounder effect, direct effect, and sample sizes when all confounders were included in the estimation. When one of the two confounders were omitted from the estimation process, in general, none of the methods had acceptable relative bias in the simulation study. Omitting one of the confounders from estimation corresponded to the common case in mediation studies where no measure of a confounder is available but a confounder may affect the analysis. Failing to measure potential post-treatment confounder variables in a mediation model leads to biased estimates regardless of the analysis method used and emphasizes the importance of sensitivity analysis for causal mediation analysis.
ContributorsKisbu Sakarya, Yasemin (Author) / Mackinnon, David Peter (Thesis advisor) / Aiken, Leona (Committee member) / West, Stephen (Committee member) / Millsap, Roger (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2013