IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0310429.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Suggested guidelines in reporting results from mediation analysis, standardized or unstandardized?

Author

Listed:
  • Mohammad Nahian Ferdous Abrar
  • Hongmei Zhang
  • Yu Jiang

Abstract

Mediation analysis is commonly implemented in psychological, epidemiological, and social behavior studies to identify potential factors that mediate associations between exposures and physical or psychological outcomes. Various analytical tools are available to perform mediation analyses, among which Mplus is widely used due to its user-friendly interface. In practice, sumptuous results provided by Mplus, such as the estimated standardized and unstandardized effect sizes, can be difficult for researchers to choose to match their studies. Through a comprehensive review and utilizing findings from a proven study, we proposed guidelines and recommendations to help users select between standardized or unstandardized results based on data attributes and users’ hypotheses. We also provided guidelines to choose from several types of standardized values based on the types of variables, including exposures, mediators, and outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Mohammad Nahian Ferdous Abrar & Hongmei Zhang & Yu Jiang, 2024. "Suggested guidelines in reporting results from mediation analysis, standardized or unstandardized?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(9), pages 1-10, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0310429
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0310429
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0310429
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0310429&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0310429?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0310429. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.