Accuracy of Parameter Estimates and Confidence Intervals in Moderated Mediation Models A Comparison of Regression and Latent Moderated Structural Equations

• Published in: Organizational research methods Vol. 20; no. 4; pp. 746 - 769
• Main Authors: Cheung, Gordon W., Lau, Rebecca S.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Los Angeles, CA SAGE Publications 01-10-2017; SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC
• Subjects: Computer simulation; Confidence intervals; Economic models; Error analysis; Mediation; Regression analysis; Regression coefficients; Simulation; Test procedures; confidence intervals; regression; moderated mediation; latent moderated structural equations
• ISSN: 1094-4281; 1552-7425
• DOI: 10.1177/1094428115595869

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.