Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Research article

Comparison of logistic-regression based methods for simple mediation analysis with a dichotomous outcome variable

Authors: Judith J. M. Rijnhart, Jos W. R. Twisk, Iris Eekhout, Martijn W. Heymans

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Logistic regression is often used for mediation analysis with a dichotomous outcome. However, previous studies showed that the indirect effect and proportion mediated are often affected by a change of scales in logistic regression models. To circumvent this, standardization has been proposed. The aim of this study was to show the relative performance of the unstandardized and standardized estimates of the indirect effect and proportion mediated based on multiple regression, structural equation modeling, and the potential outcomes framework for mediation models with a dichotomous outcome.

Methods

We compared the performance of the effect estimates yielded by the three methods using a simulation study and two real-life data examples from an observational cohort study (n = 360).

Results

Lowest bias and highest efficiency were observed for the estimates from the potential outcomes framework and for the crude indirect effect ab and the proportion mediated ab/(ab + c’) based on multiple regression and SEM.

Conclusions

We advise the use of either the potential outcomes framework estimates or the ab estimate of the indirect effect and the ab/(ab + c’) estimate of the proportion mediated based on multiple regression and SEM when mediation analysis is based on logistic regression. Standardization of the coefficients prior to estimating the indirect effect and the proportion mediated may not increase the performance of these estimates.
Literature
1.
go back to reference MacKinnon DP. Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. New York: Routledge; 2008. MacKinnon DP. Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. New York: Routledge; 2008.
2.
go back to reference MacKinnon DP, Lockwood CM, Brown CH, Wang W, Hoffman JM. The intermediate endpoint effect in logistic and probit regression. Clinical Trials. 2007;4(5):499–513.CrossRef MacKinnon DP, Lockwood CM, Brown CH, Wang W, Hoffman JM. The intermediate endpoint effect in logistic and probit regression. Clinical Trials. 2007;4(5):499–513.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference MacKinnon D, Dwyer J. Estimating mediated effects in prevention studies. Eval Rev. 1993;17(2):144–58.CrossRef MacKinnon D, Dwyer J. Estimating mediated effects in prevention studies. Eval Rev. 1993;17(2):144–58.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Kenny DA. Mediation with dichotomous outcomes. Research Note, University of Connecticut; 2008. Kenny DA. Mediation with dichotomous outcomes. Research Note, University of Connecticut; 2008.
5.
go back to reference Pearl J. Direct and indirect effects. In: Proceedings of the seventeenth conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann publishers Inc., 2001; 2001. p. 411–420. Pearl J. Direct and indirect effects. In: Proceedings of the seventeenth conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann publishers Inc., 2001; 2001. p. 411–420.
6.
go back to reference Winship C, Mare RD. Regression models with ordinal variables. Am Sociol Rev. 1984:512–25. Winship C, Mare RD. Regression models with ordinal variables. Am Sociol Rev. 1984:512–25.
7.
go back to reference StataCorp: Stata statistical software: release 14. Edited by station C. Thousand Oaks: StataCorp LP; 2015. StataCorp: Stata statistical software: release 14. Edited by station C. Thousand Oaks: StataCorp LP; 2015.
8.
go back to reference Carsey TM, Harden JJ. Monte Carlo simulation and resampling methods for social science: Sage Publications; 2013. Carsey TM, Harden JJ. Monte Carlo simulation and resampling methods for social science: Sage Publications; 2013.
9.
go back to reference Wijnstok NJ, Hoekstra T, van Mechelen W, Kemper HC, Twisk JW. Cohort profile: the Amsterdam growth and health longitudinal study. Int J Epidemiol. 2013;42(2):422–9.CrossRef Wijnstok NJ, Hoekstra T, van Mechelen W, Kemper HC, Twisk JW. Cohort profile: the Amsterdam growth and health longitudinal study. Int J Epidemiol. 2013;42(2):422–9.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Emsley R, Liu H. PARAMED: Stata module to perform causal mediation analysis using parametric regression models. Statistical software components. Boston: Boston College Department of Economics; 2013. Emsley R, Liu H. PARAMED: Stata module to perform causal mediation analysis using parametric regression models. Statistical software components. Boston: Boston College Department of Economics; 2013.
11.
go back to reference Judd CM, Kenny DA. Process analysis estimating mediation in treatment evaluations. Eval Rev. 1981;5(5):602–19.CrossRef Judd CM, Kenny DA. Process analysis estimating mediation in treatment evaluations. Eval Rev. 1981;5(5):602–19.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Greenland S, Robins JM. Identifiability, exchangeability, and epidemiological confounding. Int J Epidemiol. 1986;15(3):413–9.CrossRef Greenland S, Robins JM. Identifiability, exchangeability, and epidemiological confounding. Int J Epidemiol. 1986;15(3):413–9.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference McKelvey RD, Zavoina W. A statistical model for the analysis of ordinal level dependent variables. J Math Sociol. 1975;4(1):103–20.CrossRef McKelvey RD, Zavoina W. A statistical model for the analysis of ordinal level dependent variables. J Math Sociol. 1975;4(1):103–20.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Long JS. Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1997. Long JS. Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1997.
16.
go back to reference Imai K, Keele L, Tingley D. A general approach to causal mediation analysis. Psychol Methods. 2010;15(4):309–34.CrossRef Imai K, Keele L, Tingley D. A general approach to causal mediation analysis. Psychol Methods. 2010;15(4):309–34.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Muthén BO, Muthén LK, Asparouhov T. Regression and mediation analysis using Mplus. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén; 2017. Muthén BO, Muthén LK, Asparouhov T. Regression and mediation analysis using Mplus. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén; 2017.
18.
go back to reference VanderWeele TJ, Vansteelandt S. Odds ratios for mediation analysis for a dichotomous outcome. Am J Epidemiol. 2010;172(12):1339–48.CrossRef VanderWeele TJ, Vansteelandt S. Odds ratios for mediation analysis for a dichotomous outcome. Am J Epidemiol. 2010;172(12):1339–48.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Valeri L, VanderWeele 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.CrossRef Valeri L, VanderWeele 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.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Iacobucci D, Saldanha N, Deng X. A meditation on mediation: evidence that structural equations models perform better than regressions. J Consum Psychol. 2007;17(2):139–53.CrossRef Iacobucci D, Saldanha N, Deng X. A meditation on mediation: evidence that structural equations models perform better than regressions. J Consum Psychol. 2007;17(2):139–53.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference VanderWeele TJ. Explanation in causal inference: methods for mediation and interaction. New York: Oxford University Press; 2015. VanderWeele TJ. Explanation in causal inference: methods for mediation and interaction. New York: Oxford University Press; 2015.
22.
go back to reference Mood C. Logistic regression: why we cannot do what we think we can do, and what we can do about it. Eur Sociol Rev. 2010;26(1):67–82.CrossRef Mood C. Logistic regression: why we cannot do what we think we can do, and what we can do about it. Eur Sociol Rev. 2010;26(1):67–82.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Mare RD. Response: statistical models of educational stratification—Hauser and Andrew's models for school transitions. Sociol Methodol. 2006;36(1):27–37.CrossRef Mare RD. Response: statistical models of educational stratification—Hauser and Andrew's models for school transitions. Sociol Methodol. 2006;36(1):27–37.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Gardner MJ, Altman DG. Confidence intervals rather than P values: estimation rather than hypothesis testing. BMJ. 1986;292(6522):746–50.CrossRef Gardner MJ, Altman DG. Confidence intervals rather than P values: estimation rather than hypothesis testing. BMJ. 1986;292(6522):746–50.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Hayes AF. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press; 2018. Hayes AF. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press; 2018.
26.
go back to reference Imai K, Keele L, Tingley D, Yamamoto T. Unpacking the black box of causality: learning about causal mechanisms from experimental and observational studies. American Political Science Review. 2011;105(04):765–89.CrossRef Imai K, Keele L, Tingley D, Yamamoto T. Unpacking the black box of causality: learning about causal mechanisms from experimental and observational studies. American Political Science Review. 2011;105(04):765–89.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Ullman JB. Structural equation modeling: reviewing the basics and moving forward. J Pers Assess. 2006;87(1):35–50.CrossRef Ullman JB. Structural equation modeling: reviewing the basics and moving forward. J Pers Assess. 2006;87(1):35–50.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Comparison of logistic-regression based methods for simple mediation analysis with a dichotomous outcome variable
Authors
Judith J. M. Rijnhart
Jos W. R. Twisk
Iris Eekhout
Martijn W. Heymans
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0654-z

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2019 Go to the issue