Assessing mediation in dyadic data using the actor-partner interdependence model

Structural Equation Modeling

Volumn 18, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 595-612

  Ledermann, Thomas ^a   Macho, Siegfried ^b   Kenny, David A ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BASEL   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF FRIBOURG   (Switzerland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT   (United States)

Author keywords

APIM; Bootstrapping; Dyadic data; Mediation; Phantom models

Indexed keywords

EID: 84855805606     PISSN: 10705511     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10705511.2011.607099     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Arbuckle, J. L. (1995-2009). Amos 18 user's guide. Chicago, IL: SPSS.
2. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
3. Bauer, D. J., Preacher, K. J., & Gil, K. M. (2006). Conceptualizing and testing random indirect effects and moderated mediation in multilevel models: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 11, 142-163.
4. Bentler, P. M. (2006). EQS 6 structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software.
5. Bentler, P. M., & Satorra, A. (2010). Testing model nesting and equivalence. Psychological Methods, 15, 111-123.
6. Boker, S., Neale, M., Maes, H., Wilde, M., Spiegel, M., Brick, T., Fox, J. (2011). OpenMx: An open source extended structural equation modeling framework. Psychometrika, 76, 306-317.
7. Campbell, L., Simpson, J. A., Kashy, D. A., & Fletcher, G. J. O. (2001). Ideal standards, the self, and flexibility of ideals in close relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 447-462.
8. Cheung, M. W. L. (2007). Comparison of approaches to constructing confidence intervals for mediating effects using structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 227-246.
9. Cobb, R. J., Davila, J., & Bradbury, T. N. (2001). Attachment security and marital satisfaction: The role of positive perceptions and social support. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1131-1143.
10. Griffin, D. W., & Gonzalez, R. (1995). Correlational analysis of dyad-level data in the exchangeable case. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 430-445.
11. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (2006). LISREL 8.8 for Windows. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
12. Judd, C. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1981). Process analysis: Estimating mediation in treatment evaluations. Evaluation Review, 5, 602-619.
13. Kenny, D. A. (1996). Models of non-independence in dyadic research. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 13, 279-294.
14. Kenny, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (1999). Partner effects in relationship research: Conceptual issues, analytic difficulties, and illustrations. Personal Relationships, 6, 433-448.
15. Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford.
16. Kenny, D. A., Korchmaros, J. D., & Bolger, N. (2003). Lower level mediation in multilevel models. Psychological Methods, 8, 115-128.
17. Kenny, D. A., & La Voie, L. (1985). Separating individual and group effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 339-348.
18. Kenny, D. A., & Ledermann, T. (2010). Detecting, measuring, and testing dyadic patterns in the actor-partner interdependence model. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 359-366.
19. Ledermann, T., & Bodenmann, G. (2006). Moderator-und mediatoreffekte bei dyadischen daten: zwei erweiterungen des kteur-Partner-Interdependenz-Modells [Moderator and mediator effects in dyadic research: Two extensions of the actor-partner interdependence model]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 37, 27-40.
20. Ledermann, T., Bodenmann, G., Rudaz, M., & Bradbury, T. N. (2010). Stress, communication, and marital quality in couples. Family Relations, 59, 195-206.
21. Ledermann, T., & Macho, S. (2009). Mediation in dyadic data at the level of the dyads: A structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 661-670.
22. Lee, D., & Hershberger, S. (1990). A simple rule for generating equivalent models in covariance structure modeling. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 313-334.
23. Maassen, G. D., & Bakker, A. B. (2001). Suppressor variables in path models: Definitions and interpretations. Sociological Methods and Research, 30, 241-270.
24. MacCallum, R. C., Wegener, D. T., Uchiono, B. N., & Fabrigar, L. R. (1993). The problem of equivalent models in applications of covariance structure analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 185-199.
25. Macho, S., & Ledermann, T. (2011). Estimating, testing and comparing specific effects in structural equation models: The phantom model approach. Psychological Methods, 16, 34-43.
26. MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
27. MacKinnon, D. P., Krull, J. L., & Lockwood, C. M. (2000). Equivalence of the mediation, confounding and suppression effect. Prevention Science, 1, 173-181.
28. MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 99-128.
29. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2010). Mplus user's guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
30. Olsen, D. H., Fournier, D. G., & Druckman, J. M. (1983). PREPARE/ENRICH counselor's manual. Minneapolis, MN: PREPARE/ENRICH, Inc.
31. Olsen, J. A., & Kenny, D. A. (2006). Structural equation modeling with interchangeable dyads. PsychologicalMethods, 11, 127-141.
32. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891.
33. Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15, 209-233.
34. Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385-401.
35. Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2001). Can there be infinitely many models equivalent to a given covariance structure model? Structural Equation Modeling, 8, 142-149.
36. Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2007). Equivalent structural equation models: A challenge and responsibility. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 695-700.
37. Riggs, S. A., Cusimano, A. M., & Benson, K. M. (2011). Childhood emotional abuse and attachment processes in the dyadic adjustment of dating couples. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 58, 126-138.
38. Schneider, B., & Waite, L. J. (2008). The 500 Family Study [1998-2000:United States]. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.
39. Schröder-Abé, M., & Schütz, A. (2011). Walking in each other's shoes: Perspective taking mediates effects of emotional intelligence on relationship quality. European Journal of Personality, 25, 155-169.
40. Srivastava, S., McGonigal, K. M., Richards, J. M., Butler, E. A., & Gross, J. J. (2006). Optimism in close relationships: How seeing things in a positive light makes them so. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 143-153.
41. Stelzl, I. (1986). Changing a causal hypothesis without changing the fit: Some rules for generating equivalent path models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 21, 309-331.
42. Williams, J., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Resampling and distribution of the product methods for testing indirect effects in complex models. Structural Equation Modeling, 15, 23-51.
43. Woody, E., & Sadler, P. (2005). Structural equation models for interchangeable dyads: Being the same makes a difference. Psychological Methods, 10, 139-158.