Hello everybody,
I'm currently looking at an indirect effect. For this effect, I obtained a p-value of 0.07 and a bias corrected 95% confidence interval of (0.005; 0.080). Against this backdrop, I wondered how I should interpret these results. From my point of view, looking at the p-value would imply that the effect is not significant at the 5% level, while considering the condifence interval would imply that the effect is significant (as the value of 0 is not included in the CI).
How would you interpret these results?
Thank you!
Indirect Effects: P-Values and Confidence Intervals
-
- PLS Junior User
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 3:04 pm
- Real name and title: Adrian
-
- PLS Junior User
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2017 11:53 am
- Real name and title: Amer Saeed
Re: Indirect Effects: P-Values and Confidence Intervals
According to latest articles bias corrected confidence intervals give the best indication of indirect effects. For your situation perhaps you have run bootstrap analysis with two-tail. If it is then try to run with one-tail and you will get the significant p-value as well.
Hope it will help
Regards
Hope it will help
Regards
-
- PLS Junior User
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 3:04 pm
- Real name and title: Adrian
Re: Indirect Effects: P-Values and Confidence Intervals
Thank you for your answer! This could be interesting to think about. Still, could anyone explain the large differences when considering both the confidence intervals and the p-values described in my first post?
Thanks again and all the best!
Thanks again and all the best!
-
- SmartPLS Developer
- Posts: 1284
- Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 11:09 am
- Real name and title: Dr. Jan-Michael Becker
Re: Indirect Effects: P-Values and Confidence Intervals
The p-value is based on t-distribution testing and therefore assumes symmetric and close to normal parameter estimates distributions. The bca confidence relax some of these assumption and are, as was said before, better suited for indirect effects, which usually do not follow the assumptions of t-distributed parameters.
Dr. Jan-Michael Becker, BI Norwegian Business School, SmartPLS Developer
Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jan_Michael_Becker
GoogleScholar: http://scholar.google.de/citations?user ... AAAJ&hl=de
Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jan_Michael_Becker
GoogleScholar: http://scholar.google.de/citations?user ... AAAJ&hl=de
-
- PLS Junior User
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2018 8:35 pm
- Real name and title: Mortimer Penn, Statistician in Training
Re: Indirect Effects: P-Values and Confidence Intervals
You mention the latest articles saying bias corrected confidence intervals are better indicators for indirect effects than p values. Do you have any specific citations handy.AmerSaeed wrote:According to latest articles bias corrected confidence intervals give the best indication of indirect effects. For your situation perhaps you have run bootstrap analysis with two-tail. If it is then try to run with one-tail and you will get the significant p-value as well.
Hope it will help
Regards
Thank you for your help,
mp
-
- SmartPLS Developer
- Posts: 1284
- Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 11:09 am
- Real name and title: Dr. Jan-Michael Becker
Re: Indirect Effects: P-Values and Confidence Intervals
Particularly for the inference of the indirect effect Hayes and Scharkow (2013) is probably one of the standard sources. Although many researchers tend to cite other more general publications. For example, Hayes repeats and discusses the results together with other research in his 2013 book.
Hayes, A. F., & Scharkow, M. (2013). The relative trustworthiness of inferential tests of the indirect effect in statistical mediation analysis: Does method really matter? Psychological Science.
Hayes, A. F. (2013) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach
Regarding PLS, I think in the new Primer book there is also the suggestion to use bias-corrected confidence intervals: https://www.smartpls.com/documentation/ ... s-sem-book
In addition, standard treatments of bootstrapping also include discussions of the superiority of bias-corrected approaches, e.g.,
Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1993). An introduction to the bootstrap. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall.
Davison, A. C., & Hinkley, D. V. (1999). Bootstrap methods and their application. Cambridge university press.
Hayes, A. F., & Scharkow, M. (2013). The relative trustworthiness of inferential tests of the indirect effect in statistical mediation analysis: Does method really matter? Psychological Science.
Hayes, A. F. (2013) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach
Regarding PLS, I think in the new Primer book there is also the suggestion to use bias-corrected confidence intervals: https://www.smartpls.com/documentation/ ... s-sem-book
In addition, standard treatments of bootstrapping also include discussions of the superiority of bias-corrected approaches, e.g.,
Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1993). An introduction to the bootstrap. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall.
Davison, A. C., & Hinkley, D. V. (1999). Bootstrap methods and their application. Cambridge university press.
Dr. Jan-Michael Becker, BI Norwegian Business School, SmartPLS Developer
Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jan_Michael_Becker
GoogleScholar: http://scholar.google.de/citations?user ... AAAJ&hl=de
Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jan_Michael_Becker
GoogleScholar: http://scholar.google.de/citations?user ... AAAJ&hl=de