title: A cautionary note on the power of the test for the indirect effect in mediation analysis.
abstract: Recent simulation studies have pointed to the higher power of the test for the mediated effect vs. the test for the total effect, even in the presence of a direct effect. This has motivated applied researchers to investigate mediation in settings where there is no evidence of a total effect. In this paper we provide analytical insight into the circumstances under which higher power of the test for the mediated effect vs. the test for the total effect can be expected in the absence of a direct effect. We argue that the acclaimed power gain is somewhat deceptive and comes with a big price. On the basis of the results, we recommend that when the primary interest lies in mediation only, a significant test for the total effect should not be used as a prerequisite for the test for the indirect effect. However, because the test for the indirect effect is vulnerable to bias when common causes of mediator and outcome are not measured or not accounted for, it should be evaluated in a sensitivity analysis.
authors: Department of Data Analysis, Ghent University Ghent, Belgium.
authors: Tom
authors: T
authors: Loeys
authors: Department of Data Analysis, Ghent University Ghent, Belgium.
authors: Beatrijs
authors: B
authors: Moerkerke
authors: Department of Applied Mathematics, Computer Science and Statistics, Ghent University Ghent, Belgium.
authors: Stijn
authors: S
authors: Vansteelandt
keywords: confounding; indirect effect; mediation analysis; power; sensitivity analysis; type I error
references: Front Psychol. 2010 Mar 08;1:1
references: 21833184
references: Behav Res Methods. 2015 Jun;47(2):424-42
references: 24903690
references: Psychol Methods. 2002 Dec;7(4):422-45
references: 12530702
references: Psychol Methods. 2010 Dec;15(4):309-34
references: 20954780
references: J Pers Soc Psychol. 2012 Jan;102(1):1-3
references: 22514799
references: J Pers Soc Psychol. 2010 Apr;98(4):550-8
references: 20307128
references: Br J Math Stat Psychol. 2009 Nov;62(Pt 3):457-84
references: 18652738
references: Eval Rev. 2013 Oct;37(5):405-31
references: 24681690
references: Psychol Sci. 2014 Feb;25(2):334-9
references: 24311476
references: J Exp Educ. 2014 Jan 1;82(3):283-306
references: 24954952
references: Multivariate Behav Res. 2014 May;49(3):261-268
references: 25554711
references: Prev Sci. 2000 Dec;1(4):173-81
references: 11523746
references: Psychol Sci. 2013 Oct;24(10):1918-27
references: 23955356
references: Multivariate Behav Res. 2012;47(1):61-87
references: 24049213
references: Psychol Sci. 2007 Mar;18(3):233-9
references: 17444920
references: Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2015 Feb;19(1):30-43
references: 25063043
references: Psychol Methods. 2014 Dec;19(4):459-81
references: 24885338
references: J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986 Dec;51(6):1173-82
references: 3806354
references: Psychol Methods. 2002 Mar;7(1):83-104
references: 11928892