Skip to main content
Log in

Testing the Causal Direction of Mediation Effects in Randomized Intervention Studies

  • Published:
Prevention Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In a recent update of the standards for evidence in research on prevention interventions, the Society of Prevention Research emphasizes the importance of evaluating and testing the causal mechanism through which an intervention is expected to have an effect on an outcome. Mediation analysis is commonly applied to study such causal processes. However, these analytic tools are limited in their potential to fully understand the role of theorized mediators. For example, in a design where the treatment x is randomized and the mediator (m) and the outcome (y) are measured cross-sectionally, the causal direction of the hypothesized mediator-outcome relation is not uniquely identified. That is, both mediation models, x → m → y or x → y → m, may be plausible candidates to describe the underlying intervention theory. As a third explanation, unobserved confounders can still be responsible for the mediator-outcome association. The present study introduces principles of direction dependence which can be used to empirically evaluate these competing explanatory theories. We show that, under certain conditions, third higher moments of variables (i.e., skewness and co-skewness) can be used to uniquely identify the direction of a mediator-outcome relation. Significance procedures compatible with direction dependence are introduced and results of a simulation study are reported that demonstrate the performance of the tests. An empirical example is given for illustrative purposes and a software implementation of the proposed method is provided in SPSS.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bullock, J. G., Green, D. P., & Ha, S. E. (2010). Yes, but what’s the mechanism? (Don’t expect an easy answer). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 550–558. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cain, M. K., Zhang, Z., & Yuan, K. H. (2017). Univariate and multivariate skewness and kurtosis for measuring nonnormality: Prevalence, influence and estimation. Behavior Research Methods, 49, 1716–1735. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0814-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, H. T. (1990). Theory-driven evaluations. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davison, A. C., & Hinkley, D. V. (1997). Bootstrap methods and their application. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • de Wit, M., & Hajos, T. (2013). Health-related quality of life. In M. D. Gellman & J. Rick Tuner (Eds.), Encyclopedia of behavioral medicine (pp. 929–931). New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dodge, Y., & Rousson, V. (2000). Direction dependence in a regression line. Communications in Statistics: Theory and Methods, 29, 1957–1972. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610920008832589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farahani, M. A., & Assari, S. (2010). Relationship between pain and quality of life. In V. R. Preedy & R. R. Watson (Eds.), Handbook of disease burdens and quality of life measures (pp. 3933–3953). New York, NY: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, J. (2008). Applied regression analysis and generalized linear models (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelfand, L. A., Mensinger, J. L., & Tenhave, T. (2009). Mediation analysis: A retrospective snapshot of practice and more recent directions. Journal of General Psychology, 136, 153–178. https://doi.org/10.3200/GENP.136.2.153-178.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gottfredson, D. C., Cook, T. D., Gardner, F. E., Gorman-Smith, D., Howe, G. W., Sandler, I. N., & Zafft, K. M. (2015). Standards of evidence for efficacy, effectiveness, and scale-up research in prevention science: Next generation. Prevention Science, 16, 893–926. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-015-0555-x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Gretton, A., Fukumizu, K., Teo, C. H., Song, L., Schölkopf, B., & Smola, A. J. (2008). A kernel statistical test of independence. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 20, 585–592.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, F. L. (2016). Alternatives to multilevel modeling for the analysis of clustered data. Journal of Experimental Education, 84, 175–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2014.952397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyvärinen, A., Karhunen, J., & Oja, E. (2001). Independent components analysis. New York, NY: Wiley & Sons.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Iacobucci, D., Saldanha, N., & Deng, X. (2007). A meditation on mediation: Evidence that structural equations models perform better than regressions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17, 139–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1057-7408(07)70020-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Imai, K., Keele, L., & Yamamoto, T. (2010). Identification, inference and sensitivity analysis for causal mediation effects. Statistical Science, 5, 1–71. https://doi.org/10.1214/10-sts321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Imai, K., Keele, L., Tingley, D., & Yamamoto, T. (2011). Unpacking the black box of causality: Learning about causal mechanisms from experimental and observational studies. American Political Science Review, 105, 765–789. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055411000414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. New York, NY: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Micceri, T. (1989). The unicorn, the normal curve, and other improbable creatures. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 156–166. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.105.1.156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearl, J. (2001). Direct and indirect effects. In Proceedings of the 17th conference in uncertainly in artificial intelligence (pp. 411–420). San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  • Shimizu, S., Inazumi, T., Sogawa, Y., Hyvärinen, A., Kawahara, Y., Washio, T., Hoyer, P. O., & Bollen, K. (2011). DirectLiNGAM: A direct method for learning a linear non-Gaussian structural equation model. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 1225–1248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422–445. https://doi.org/10.1037//1082-989x.7.4.422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stelzl, I. (1986). Changing the causal hypothesis without changing the fit: Some rules for generating equivalent path models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 21, 309–331. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2103_3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, A. L., & Ware Jr., J. E. (Eds.). (1992). Measuring functioning and well-being: The medical outcomes study approach. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Székely, G. J., Rizzo, M. L., & Bakirov, N. K. (2007). Measuring and testing dependence by correlation of distances. Annals of Statistics, 35, 2769–2794. https://doi.org/10.1214/009053607000000505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vickers, A. J. (2006). Whose data set is it anyway? Sharing raw data from randomized trials. Trials, 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-7-15.

  • Vickers, A. J., Rees, R. W., Zollman, C. E., McCarney, R., Smith, C. M., Ellis, N., ... & Van Haselen, R. (2004). Acupuncture for chronic headache in primary care: Large, pragmatic, randomised trial. BMJ, 328. doi:bmj.38029.421863.EB.

  • von Eye, A., & DeShon, R. P. (2012). Directional dependence in developmental research. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 36, 303–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025412439968.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiedermann, W., & Li, X. (2018). Direction dependence analysis: A framework to test the direction of effects in linear models with an implementation in SPSS. Behavior Research Methods. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1031-x.

  • Wiedermann, W., & von Eye, A. (2015a). Direction of effects in mediation analysis. Psychological Methods, 20, 221–244. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000027.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wiedermann, W., & von Eye, A. (2015b). Direction-dependence analysis: A confirmatory approach for testing directional theories. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 39, 570–580. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025415582056.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiedermann, W., & von Eye, A. (2016). Directionality of effects in causal mediation analysis. In W. Wiedermann & A. von Eye (Eds.), Statistics and causality: Methods for applied empirical research (pp. 63–106). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley and Sons.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wiedermann, W., Arntner, R., & von Eye, A. (2017). Heteroscedasticity as a basis of direction dependence in reversible linear regression models. Multivariate Behavioral Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2016.1275498.

Download references

Funding

No funding was received for this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wolfgang Wiedermann.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was not required for this study.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(PDF 47 kb)

ESM 2

(PDF 78 kb)

ESM 3

(SAV 9 kb)

ESM 4

(SPS 5 kb)

ESM 5

(SPS 7 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wiedermann, W., Li, X. & von Eye, A. Testing the Causal Direction of Mediation Effects in Randomized Intervention Studies. Prev Sci 20, 419–430 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-018-0900-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-018-0900-y

Keywords

Navigation