Abstract:Methods to assess the significance of mediated effects in education and the social sciences are well studied and fall into two categories: single sample methods and computer-intensive methods. A popular single sample method to detect the significance of the mediated effect is the test of joint significance, and a popular computer-intensive method to detect the significance of the mediated effect is the bias-corrected bootstrap method. Both these methods are used for testing the significance of mediated effects in structural equation models (SEMs). A recent study by Leth-Steensen and Gallitto 2016 provided evidence that the test of joint significance was more powerful than the bias-corrected bootstrap method for detecting mediated effects in SEMs, which is inconsistent with previous research on the topic. The goal of this article was to investigate this surprising result and describe two issues related to testing the significance of mediated effects in SEMs which explain the inconsistent results regarding the power of the test of joint significance and the bias-corrected bootstrap found by Leth-Steensen and Gallitto 2016. The first issue was that the bias-corrected bootstrap method was conducted incorrectly. The bias-corrected bootstrap was used to estimate the standard error of the mediated effect as opposed to creating confidence intervals. The second issue was that the correlation between the path coefficients of the mediated effect was ignored as an important aspect of testing the significance of the mediated effect in SEMs. The results of the replication study confirmed prior research on testing the significance of mediated effects. That is, the bias-corrected bootstrap method was more powerful than the test of joint significance, and the bias-corrected bootstrap method had elevated Type 1 error rates in some cases. Additional methods for testing the significance of mediated effects in SEMs were considered and limitations and future directions were discussed.

A Tutorial on Testing the Equality of Standardized Regression Coefficients in Structural Equation Models using Wald Tests with lavaan

Small sample corrections for Wald tests in Latent Variable Models

When and how to use set‐exploratory structural equation modelling to test structural models: A tutorial using the R package lavaan

A Tutorial on Testing, Visualizing, and Probing an Interaction Involving a Multicategorical Variable in Linear Regression Analysis

Linear Latent Variable Models: The lava-package

Exploration of the MCMC Wald test with linear regression

A bootstrap test for equality of variances

Testing and Interpreting Latent Variable Interactions Using the semTools Package

Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error

[An aligned rank test for a nonparametric analysis of the two-way interaction]

Exact and efficient multivariate two-sample tests through generalized linear rank statistics

Using Exact Tests from Algebraic Statistics in Sparse Multi-Way Analyses: An Application to Analyzing Differential Item Functioning

Testing for homogeneous treatment effects in linear and nonparametric instrumental variable models

Cleaning Up Confounding: Accounting for Endogeneity Using Instrumental Variables and Two-Stage Models

Evaluating Small Sample Approaches for Model Test Statistics in Structural Equation Modeling

A Note on Testing Mediated Effects in Structural Equation Models

New multivariate tests for assessing covariate balance in matched observational studies

RWA Web: A Free, Comprehensive, Web-Based, and User-Friendly Tool for Relative Weight Analyses

Bootstrapping Structural Change Tests

Computational Tools for Probing Interactions in Multiple Linear Regression, Multilevel Modeling, and Latent Curve Analysis

The Extended Anderson and Hauck Tests and Sample Size Procedures for Equivalence Assessment in Simple Linear Regressions