Accuracy of Parameter Estimates and Confidence Intervals in Moderated Mediation Models: A Comparison of Regression and Latent Moderated Structural Equations. (October 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Cheung, Gordon W.; Lau, Rebecca S.
• Is Part Of: Organizational research methods. Volume 20:Number 4(2017:Oct.)
• Page Start: 746
• Page End: 769
• Publication Date: 2017-10
• Subjects: moderated mediation -- latent moderated structural equations -- confidence intervals -- regression; Organization -- Research -- Methodology -- Periodicals; Organizational sociology -- Research -- Methodology -- Periodicals; Management -- Research -- Methodology -- Periodicals; 302.350721
• DOI: 10.1177/1094428115595869
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1094-4281

Abstract

Currently, the most popular analytical method for testing moderated mediation is the regression approach, which is based on observed variables and assumes no measurement error. It is generally acknowledged that measurement errors result in biased estimates of regression coefficients. What has drawn relatively less attention is that the confidence intervals produced by regression are also biased when the variables are measured with errors. Therefore, we extend the latent moderated structural equations (LMS) method—which corrects for measurement errors when estimating latent interaction effects—to the study of the moderated mediation of latent variables. Simulations were conducted to compare the regression approach and the LMS approach. The results show that the LMS method produces accurate estimated effects and confidence intervals. By contrast, regression not only substantially underestimates the effects but also produces inaccurate confidence intervals. It is likely that the statistically significant moderated mediation effects that have been reported in previous studies using regression include biased estimated effects and confidence intervals that do not include the true values.