Commentary: Are three waves of data sufficient for assessing mediation?

Multivariate Behavioral Research

Volumn 46, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 842-851

  Reichardt, Charles S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF DENVER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84855758248     PISSN: 00273171     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00273171.2011.606740     Document Type: Article

References (10)

1. Cole, D. A., & Maxwell, S. E. (2003). Testing meditational models with longitudinal data: Questions and tips in the use of structural equation modeling. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112, 558-577.
2. Gollob, H. F., & Reichardt, C. S. (1985). Building time lags into causal models of cross-sectional data. In Proceedings of the Social Statistics Section of the American Statistical Association (pp. 165-170).Washington, DC: American Statistical Association.
3. Gollob, H. F., & Reichardt, C. S. (1987). Taking account of time lags in causal models. Child Development, 58, 80-92.
4. Gollob, H. F., & Reichardt, C. S. (1991). Interpreting and estimating indirect effects assuming time lags really matter. In L. M. Collins & Horn, J. L. (Eds.), Best methods for the analysis of change: Recent advances, unanswered questions, future directions (pp. 243-259). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
5. Green, D. P., Ha, S. E., & Bullock, J. G. (2010). Enough already about "black box" experiments: Studying mediation is more difficult than most scholars suppose. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 628, 200-208.
6. Maxwell, S. E., & Cole, D. A. (2007). Bias in cross-sectional analyses of longitudinal mediation. Psychological Methods, 12, 23-44.
7. Maxwell, S. E., Cole, D. A., & Mitchell, M. A. (2011). Bias in cross-sectional analyses of longitudinal mediation: Partial and complete mediation under an autoregressive model. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46, 816-841.
8. Reichardt, C. S. (2006). The principle of parallelism in the design of studies to estimate treatment effects. Psychological Methods, 11, 1-18.
9. Reichardt, C. S., & Gollob, H. F. (1986). Satisfying the constraints of causal modeling. In W. M. K. Trochim (Ed.), Advances in quasi-experimental design and analysis: New directions for program evaluation (no. 31, pp. 91-107). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
10. VanderWeele, T. J., & Vansteelandt, S. (2009). Conceptual issues concerningmediation, interventions and composition. Statistics and Its Interface, 2, 457-468.