I want current scholarly authorities which states that in the event of indirect effect ( mediation ) , the type of mediation should be ignored or not relevant in analysis. ( ie as it were in the case of Kenny and Baron 1986. Also , which scholarly authorities support that in the event of indirect effect ( mediation ) structural equation modeling , the type of mediation ( ie., full mediation , competitive mediation and complementary mediation ) should be considered in analysis. If possible those current works can be shared .
- The question of whether to ignore the type of mediation in analysis has been debated in the field of mediation research. While early influential works, such as Kenny and Baron (1986), focused on general mediation frameworks and statistical methods without emphasizing the type of mediation, more recent research highlights the importance of considering the specific nature of mediation effects. Some scholars argue that examining the type of mediation can provide a deeper understanding of underlying mechanisms. In the context of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), considering the type of mediation can be relevant and informative, helping researchers gain insights into the relationships and complexity of mediating processes. To find the most current and relevant scholarly authorities on mediation analysis, it's recommended to conduct a literature search using academic databases and relevant keywords, focusing on publications after 2021. Sylvester Kwesi Dadzie For the most current and up-to-date scholarly authorities on mediation analysis, I recommend conducting a literature search in academic databases like Google Scholar, PubMed, or research journal databases. Use relevant keywords such as "mediation analysis," "structural equation modeling," and "type of mediation" to find recent publications that directly address your specific inquiries.
Audrey GRACE Kwateng , Dear sir I have a question regarding the same as I am new to research and just got my 1st paper revision.
In my paper I have followed Baron and Kenney and also reported the result of AMOS bootstrap for mediation by citing Hayes (2009).
Now the same has been questioned by reviewer stating that These two methods are contradictory and should never be used together. Hayes (2009) has written an entire article titled “Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium“ about how Baron and Kenny(1986) rules are outdated and should not be used for examining mediation analysis.
How should I answer to this, as the editor has asked me to defend Baron and Kenney.
Should I remove the bootstrap results from my manuscript and just state because the direct effect became insignificant after introducing Mediator it shows full mediation (baron & Kenney). Or is there any way I can keep the Bootstrap result stating that bootstrapping was performed again to check whether the effect of the full mediation found, using Baron and Kenny’s was significant or not (But I don't have reference for the same).
Please help.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Phytochemistry
- Extracts