Mediation analysis with intermediate confounding: Structural equation modeling viewed through the causal inference lens

American Journal of Epidemiology

Volumn 181, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 64-80

  De Stavola, Bianca L ^a   Daniel, Rhian M ^a   Ploubidis, George B ^a   Micali, Nadia ^a  

^a LONDON SCHOOL OF HYGIENE AND TROPICAL MEDICINE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Eating disorders; Estimation by combination; G computation; Parametric identification; Path analysis; Sensitivity analysis

Indexed keywords

HUMAN GEOGRAPHY; METHODOLOGY; NUMERICAL MODEL; PARAMETERIZATION; SOCIAL THEORY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

ARTICLE; CAUSAL INFERENCE; CONFOUNDING VARIABLE; ENDOGENOUS VARIABLE; EXOGENOUS VARIABLE; HUMAN; MEDIATION ANALYSIS; NONLINEAR SYSTEM; PARAMETRIC TEST; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL; STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING; ADOLESCENT; BODY MASS; EATING DISORDER; EPIDEMIOLOGY; FEMALE; MATHEMATICAL PHENOMENA; THEORETICAL MODEL;

ADOLESCENT; BODY MASS INDEX; CAUSALITY; CONFOUNDING FACTORS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); EPIDEMIOLOGIC METHODS; FEEDING AND EATING DISORDERS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS; MODELS, THEORETICAL;

EID: 84922457780     PISSN: 00029262     EISSN: 14766256     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwu239     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. Judd CM, Kenny DA. Process analysis: estimating mediation in treatment evaluation. Eval Rev. 1981;5(5):602-619.
2. Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986;51(6):1173-1182.
3. Wright S. The method of path coefficients. Ann Math Stat. 1934;5(3):161-215.
4. Bollen KA. Causality and causal models. In: Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 1989:40-79.
5. Duncan OD. Path analysis: sociological examples. AJS. 1966; 72(1):1-16.
6. Sobel ME. Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociol Methodol. 1982;13:290-312.
7. James LR, Brett JM. Mediators, moderators, and tests for mediation. J Appl Psychol. 1984;69(2):307-321.
8. MacKinnon D. Single mediator model. In: Introduction to Statistical Mediation Analysis. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis; 2008:47-78.
9. Hayes AF, Preacher KJ. Quantifying and testing indirect effects in simple mediation models when the constituent paths are nonlinear. Multivariate Behav Res. 2010;45(4):627-660.
10. Muthén B. Applications of Causally Defined Direct and Indirect Effects in Mediation Analysis Using SEM in Mplus. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén and Muthén; 2011. http://statmodel2.com/download/causalmediation.pdf. Accessed August 8, 2014.
11. Robins JM, Greenland S. Identifiability and exchangeability for direct and indirect effects. Epidemiology. 1992;3(2):143-155.
12. Pearl J. Direct and indirect effects. In: Proceedings of the Seventeenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann; 2001:411-420.
13. Vander Weele TJ, Vansteelandt S. Conceptual issues concerning mediation, interventions and composition. Stat Interface. 2009;2(4):457-468.
14. Vander Weele TJ. Invited commentary: structural equation modeling and epidemiologic analysis. Am J Epidemiol. 2012; 176(7):608-612.
15. Valeri L, Vander Weele TJ. Mediation analysis allowing for exposure-mediator interactions and causal interpretation: theoretical assumptions and implementation with SAS and SPSS macros. Psychol Methods. 2013;18(2):137-150.
16. Emsley R, Dunn G, White IR. Mediation and moderation of treatment effects in randomised controlled trials of complex interventions. Stat Methods Med Res. 2010;19(3):237-270.
17. Hafeman DM, Vander Weele TJ. Alternative assumptions for the identification of direct and indirect effects. Epidemiology. 2011;22(6):753-764.
18. Ten Have TR, Joffe MM. A review of causal estimation of effects in mediation analyses. Stat Methods Med Res. 2012; 21(1):77-107.
19. Pearl J. Interpretable conditions for identifying direct and indirect effects. Los Angeles, CA: Department of Computer Science, University of California, Los Angeles; 2012. (Technical report R-389).
20. Vander Weele TJ. Marginal structural models for the estimation of direct and indirect effects. Epidemiology. 2009;20(1):18-26.
21. Robins JM. Testing and estimation of direct effects by reparameterizing directed acyclic graphs with structural nested models. In: Glymour C, Cooper G, eds. Computation, Causation, and Discovery. Menlo Park, CA/Cambridge, MA: AAAI Press/The MIT Press; 1999:349-405.
22. Vansteelandt S. Estimating direct effects in cohort and case-control studies. Epidemiology. 2009;20(6):851-860.
23. Joffe MM, Greene T. Related causal frameworks for surrogate outcomes. Biometrics. 2009;65(2):530-538.
24. Goetgeluk S, Vansteelandt S, Goetghebeur E. Estimation of controlled direct effects. J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol. 2008;70(5):1049-1066.
25. Tchetgen Tchetgen EJ, Shpitser I. Semiparametric theory for causal mediation analysis: efficiency bounds, multiple robustness and sensitivity analysis. Ann Stat. 2012;40(3):1816-1845.
26. Vansteelandt S, Bekaert M, Lange T. Imputation strategies for the estimation of natural direct and indirect effects. Epidemiol Methods. 2012;1(1):131-158.
27. Petersen ML, Sinisi SE, van der Laan MJ. Estimation of direct causal effects. Epidemiology. 2006;17(3):276-284.
28. Vander Weele TJ, Vansteelandt S, Robins JM. Effect decomposition in the presence of an exposure-induced mediator-outcome confounder. Epidemiology. 2014;25(2): 300-306.
29. Tchetgen Tchetgen EJ, Vander Weele TJ. Identification of natural direct effects when a confounder of the mediator is directly affected by exposure. Epidemiology. 2014;25(2):282-291.
30. Rubin DB. Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. J Educ Psychol. 1974; 66(5):688-701.
31. Vander Weele TJ, Vansteelandt S. Odds ratios for mediation analysis for a dichotomous outcome. Am J Epidemiol. 2010; 172(12):1339-1348.
32. Vansteelandt S. Estimation of controlled direct effects on a dichotomous outcome using logistic structural direct effect models. Biometrika. 2010;97(4):921-934.
33. Martinussen T, Vansteelandt S, Gerster M, et al. Estimation of direct effects for survival data by using the Aalen additive hazards model. J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol. 2011; 73(5):773-788.
34. Robins JM. Semantics of causal DAG models and the identification of direct and indirect effects. In: Green P, Hjort N, Richardson S, eds. Highly Structured Stochastic Systems. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2003:70-81.
35. Vander Weele TJ. Mediation and mechanism. Eur J Epidemiol. 2009;24(5):217-224.
36. Cox DR. Planning of Experiments. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 1958.
37. Rubin DB. Comment on: "Randomization analysis of experimental data in the Fisher randomization test" by D. Basu. J Am Stat Assoc. 1980;75(371):591-593.
38. Hudgens MG, Halloran ME. Toward causal inference with interference. J Am Stat Assoc. 2008;103(482):832-842.
39. Tchetgen Tchetgen EJ, Vander Weele TJ. On causal inference in the presence of interference. Stat Methods Med Res. 2012; 21(1):55-75.
40. Hernán MA, Taubman SL. Does obesity shorten life? The importance of well-defined interventions to answer causal questions. Int J Obes (Lond). 2008;32(suppl 3): S8-S14.
41. Cole SR, Frangakis CE. The consistency statement in causal inference: a definition or an assumption? Epidemiology. 2009; 20(1):3-5.
42. Vander Weele TJ. Concerning the consistency assumption in causal inference. Epidemiology. 2009;20(6):880-883.
43. Pearl J. On the consistency rule in causal inference: axiom, definition, assumption, or theorem? Epidemiology. 2010;21(6): 872-875.
44. Rubin DB. Bayesian inference for causal effects: the role of randomization. Ann Stat. 1978;6(1):34-58.
45. Pearl J. The mediation formula: a guide to the assessment of causal pathways in nonlinear models. In: Berzuini C, Dawid AP, Bernardinelli L, eds. Causality: Statistical Perspectives and Applications. Chichester, United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.; 2012:151-179.
46. Vansteelandt S. Estimation of direct and indirect effects. In: Berzuini C, Dawid AP, Bernardinelli L, eds. Causality: Statistical Perspectives and Applications. Chichester, United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.; 2012:126-150.
47. Robins J. A new approach to causal inference in mortality studies with a sustained exposure period-application to control of the healthy worker survivor effect. Math Model. 1986;7(9-12):1393-1512.
48. Vansteelandt S, Vander Weele TJ. Natural direct and indirect effects on the exposed: effect decomposition under weaker assumptions. Biometrics. 2012;68(4):1019-1027.
49. Imai K, Keele L, Yamamoto T. Identification, inference and sensitivity analysis for causal mediation effects. Stat Sci. 2010; 25(1):51-71.
50. Daniel RM, De Stavola BL, Cousens SN. gformula: estimating causal effects in the presence of time-varying confounding or mediation using the g-computation formula. Stata J. 2011; 11(4):479-517.
51. Zheng W, van der Laan MJ. Targeted maximum likelihood estimation of natural direct effects. Int J Biostat. 2012;8(1).
52. Mulaik S. Structural equation models. In: Linear Causal Modeling with Structural Equations. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2009:119-138.
53. MacKinnon DP, Warsi G, Dwyer JH. A simulation study of mediated effect measures. Multivariate Behav Res. 1995;30(1): 41-62.
54. MacKinnon DP, Dwyer JH. Estimating mediated effects in prevention studies. Eval Rev. 1993;17(2):144-158.
55. Muthén B, Asparouhov T. Causal effects in mediation modeling: an introduction with applications to latent variables. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén and Muthén; 2014. http://www. statmodel.com/Mediation.shtml. Accessed November 19, 2014.
56. Bentler PM. Multivariate analysis with latent variables: causal modeling. Annu Rev Psychol. 1980;31:419-456.
57. MacKinnon D. Computer intensive methods for mediation models. In: Introduction to Statistical Mediation Analysis. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis; 2008:325-346.
58. Hoyle R, Kenny D. Sample Size, Reliability, and Tests of Statistical Mediation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1999.
59. Hernán MA. Beyond exchangeability: the other conditions for causal inference in medical research. Stat Methods Med Res. 2012;21(1):3-5.
60. Emsley R, Liu H, et al. PARAMED: Stata module to perform causal mediation analysis using parametric models. St. Louis, MO: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; 2013. https://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/s457581.html. Accessed November 19, 2014.
61. Wermuth N, Cox DR. Distortion of effects caused by indirect confounding. Biometrika. 2008;95(1):17-33.
62. Moerkerke B, Loeys T, Vansteelandt S. Structural equation modeling versus marginal structural modeling for assessing mediation in the presence of post-treatment confounding. Psychol Methods. In press.
63. Pearl J. Interpretation and Identification of Causal Mediation. Los Angeles, CA: Department of Computer Science, University of California, Los Angeles; 2014. http://ftp.cs.ucla.edu/pub/stat-ser/r389.pdf. Accessed August 8, 2014.
64. Imai K, Yamamoto T Identification and sensitivity analysis for multiple causal mechanisms: revisiting evidence from framing experiments. Polit Anal. 2013;21(2):141-171.
65. Boyd A, Golding J, Macleod J, et al. Cohort profile: the 'children of the 90s'-the index offspring of the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children. Int J Epidemiol. 2013;42(1):111-127.
66. Micali N, Ploubidis G, De Stavola B, et al. Frequency and patterns of eating disorder symptoms in early adolescence. J Adolesc Health. 2014;54(5):574-581.
67. Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus User's Guide. 7th ed. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén and Muthén; 1998.
68. Tchetgen Tchetgen EJ. Formulae for causal mediation analysis in an odds ratio context without a normality assumption for the continuous mediator. (Harvard University Biostatistics Working Paper no. 139). Berkeley, CA: Collection of Biostatistics Research Archive, Berkeley Electronic Press; 2012. http://biostats.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi? article=1147&context=harvardbiostat. Accessed November 19, 2014.