When Is the Difference Method Conservative for Assessing Mediation?
Author(s) -
Zhichao Jiang,
Tyler J. VanderWeele
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
american journal of epidemiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.33
H-Index - 256
eISSN - 1476-6256
pISSN - 0002-9262
DOI - 10.1093/aje/kwv059
Subject(s) - counterfactual thinking , mediation , difference in differences , logistic regression , significant difference , econometrics , regression , statistics , interpretation (philosophy) , outcome (game theory) , regression analysis , medicine , psychology , mathematics , social psychology , computer science , mathematical economics , political science , law , programming language
Assessment of indirect effects is useful for epidemiologists interested in understanding the mechanisms of exposure-outcome relationships. A traditional way of estimating indirect effects is to use the "difference method," which is based on regression analysis in which one adds a possible mediator to the regression model and examines whether the coefficient for the exposure changes. The difference method has been criticized for lacking a causal interpretation when it is used with logistic regression. In this article, we use the counterfactual framework to define the natural indirect effect (NIE) and assess the relationship between the NIE and the difference method. We show that under appropriate assumptions, the difference method consistently estimates the NIE for continuous outcomes and is always conservative for binary outcomes. Thus, the difference method can be used to provide evidence for the presence of mediation but not for the absence of mediation.
Accelerating Research
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom
Address
John Eccles HouseRobert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom