Notice: On April 23, 2014, Statalist moved from an email list to a forum, based at statalist.org.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: st: Testing a curvilinear mediator
From
"Dirk Deichmann" <[email protected]>
To
[email protected]
Subject
Re: st: Testing a curvilinear mediator
Date
Mon, 21 Mar 2011 10:23:10 +0100 (MET)
Hey everyone,
Does anyone know how to handle and interpret an inverted u-shaped mediator in a logistic regression? Or do you maybe have some literature tips?
Many thanks again,
Dirk
----- original message --------
Subject: st: Testing a curvilinear mediator
Sent: Wed, 16 Mar 2011
From: Dirk Deichmann<[email protected]>
> Hi group,
>
> I would like to test a model with a mediating variable which by itself has a
> curvilinear relationship with the DV. IV and DV are binary variables whereas
> M is continuous.
>
> If such an analysis of a mediator, which is curvilinear, is possible, how
> can I perform it? Are there some causal steps I need to go through?
>
> I thought that maybe a moderated mediation would work except that the
> moderator is not a different variable but the same as the mediator.
>
> I started with the four step procedure and added the squared term in step 3
> next to the linear term, and the IV (see steps and findings below). However,
> I have read that for moderated mediation it is advised to also include an
> interaction of the moderator with the IV in the first step already. But this
> seems not really applicable in my case, or did I misunderstood something?
>
> Provided that I am doing something reasonable here, how do I actually
> interpret a curvilinear mediator? Is it correct to say that the mediator
> works best at intermediate levels and less at low and high levels if I find
> an inverted U-shaped relation? Also, how should I perform the Sobel test?
> Does this make sense at all if my mediator turns out to be inverted
> U-shaped?
>
> Path b (s.e.) sig.
> Step 1: IV > DV 0.63 (0.36) ^
> Step 2: IV > M 0.25 (0.14) ^
> Step 3: M > DV (controlling for IV and M squared) 1.84 (0.38) ***
> Step 3: M squared > DV (controlling for IV and M) -0.50 (0.15) ***
> Step 4: IV > DV (controlling for M and M squared) 0.44 (0.38) n.s.
>
> Lot?s of questions- I hope that somebody knows something about this and
> would like to thank you in advance for your kind help and support.
>
> Best,
>
> Dirk
>
>
> *
> * For searches and help try:
> * http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
> * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
> * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
>
--- original message end ----
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/