Mediation Analysis via Observation Oriented Modeling

Mediation Analysis via Observation Oriented Modeling

Author(s)

Erika A. Brown, James W. Grice

Download Full PDF Downloads: 662 Views: 1246 Pages:

Volume 1 - November 2012 (11)

Abstract

Psychologists routinely treat psychological attributes as quantitative in nature, and the majority of statistical tools traditionally employed by psychologists also rest upon the assumption of continuous quantitative structure. There is no evidence, however, that attributes such as intelligence, depression, personality traits, etc. are truly quantitative, thus rendering most statistical techniques inappropriate for psychological data. Observation Oriented Modeling (OOM) is an alternative data analysis technique that does not require the assumption of continuous quantity, and it is an approach that eschews aggregate statistics while returning individual observations to the forefront of the analysis. Two published mediation models are re-analyzed in the current paper using OOM and the results compared to those obtained from traditional, variable-based analyses. It is shown that OOM yields results that are entirely transparent and readily interpretable. Unlike traditional analyses, the results also provide a clear understanding of what is happening at the level of the persons in the two studies. OOM is therefore a novel way of conceptualizing and analyzing data that may lead to more accurate and complete explanations of psychological phenomena.

Keywords

Observation Oriented Modeling, Mediation Analysis, Null Hypothesis Significance Testing, Research Methods

References

  1. 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
  2. Barrett, P. (2008). The consequence of sustaining a pathology: Scientific stagnation – a commentary on the target article “Is psychometrics a pathological science?” by Joel Michell. Measurement, 6, 78-83
  3. Brown, E. A. & Grice, J. W. (2011). One is enough: Single-item measurement via the Dynamic
  4. Analog Scale. Sage Open, 1-10. DOI: 10.1177/2158244011428647
  5. Collins, L. M., Graham, J. W., & Flaherty, B. P. (1998). An alternative framework for defining mediation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 33, 295-312
  6. Donnellan, M. B., Larsen-Rife, D., & Conger, R. D. (2005). Personality, family history, and competence in early adult romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 562-576
  7. Faldowski, R. A. (2009). Rediscovering the individual in mediation analysis. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 43, 253-259
  8. Fechner, G. T. (1860). Elemente der Psychophysik [Elements of psychophysics] (Vol. Leipzig, Germany. Breitkopf & Härtel
  9. Ferguson, A., Myers, C. S., Bartlett, R. J., Banister, H., Bartlett, F. C., Brown, W., Campbell, N. R., Craik, K. J. W., Drever, J., Guild, J., Houstoun, R. A., Irwin, J. O., Kaye, G. W. C., Philpott, S. J. F., Richardson, L. F., Shaxby, J. H., Smith, T., Thouless, R. H., & Tucker, W. S. (1940). Final report of the committee appointed to consider and report upon the possibility of quantitative estimates of sensory events. Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 2, 331-349
  10. Freedman, D. A. (1991). Statistical models and shoe leather. Sociological Methodology, 21, 291- 313
  11. 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, 153-176
  12. Grice, J. W. (2011). Observation oriented modeling: Analysis of cause in the behavioral sciences. San Diego, CA: Academic Press
  13. Grice J.W., Barrett P.T., Schlimgen L.A., Abramson C.I. (2012) Toward a Brighter Future for Psychology as an Observation Oriented Science. Behavioral Sciences, 2(1), 1-22.
  14. Hölder, O. (1901). Die Axiome der Quantität und die Lehre vom Mass. Berichte über die Verhandlungen der Könglich Sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, Mathematisch-Physische Klasse, 53, 1-46
  15. Johnson, H. M. (1936). Pseudo-mathematics in the mental and social sciences. American Journal of Psychology, 48, 342-351
  16. Judd, C. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1981). Process analysis: Estimating mediation in treatment evaluations. Evaluation Review, 5, 602-619
  17. Kaczynski, K. J., Lindahl, K. M., Malik, N. M., & Laurenceau, J. (2006). Marital conflict, maternal and paternal parenting, and child adjustment: A test of mediation and moderation. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 199-208
  18. Kazdin, A. E. (2007). Mediators and mechanisms of change in psychotherapy research. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 3, 1-27
  19. Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Bolger, N. (1997). Data analysis in social psychology. In D. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.) Handbook of Social Psychology (4th edition, Vol 1, pp. 233-265). New York: McGraw-Hill
  20. Markus, K. A. & Borsboom, D. (2012). The cat came back: Evaluating arguments against
  21. psychological measurement. Theory & Psychology, 22, 452-466
  22. Mason, W. M. (1991). Freedman is right as far as he goes, but there is more, and it’s worse. Statisticians could help. Sociological Methodology, 21, 337-351
  23. Michell, J. (1997). Quantitative science and the definition of measurement in psychology. British Journal of Psychology, 88, 355-383
  24. Michell, J. (2008). Is psychometrics pathological science? Measurement, 6, 7-24
  25. Michell, J. (2011). Qualitative research meets the ghost of Pythagoras. Theory & Psychology, 21, 241-259
  26. Nagy, M. S. (2002). Using a single-item approach to measure facet job satisfaction. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 77–86.
  27. NIMH Consortium of Editors on Development and Psychopathology (2000). Editorial statement
  28. Applied Developmental Science, 4(1), 66
  29. Stevens, S. S. (1946). On the theory of scales of measurement. Science, 103, 667-680.
  30. Tremblay, P. F., & Gardner, R. C. (1996). On the growth of structural equation modeling in psychological journals. Structural Equation Modeling, 3, 93-104
  31. Trendler, G. (2009). Measurement theory, psychology and the revolution that cannot happen. Theory & Psychology, 19, 579-599
  32. Von Eye, A., Mun, E. Y., & Mair, P. (2009). What carries a mediation process? Configural analysis of mediation. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 43, 228-247
  33. Webster, C. D., Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., Cormier, C., & Quinsey, V. L. (1994). The violence prediction scheme: Assessing dangerousness in high risk men. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto, Centre of Criminology
  34. Woods, B. (2011). What’s still wrong with psychology, anyway? Twenty slow years, three old issues, and one new methodology for improving psychological research. Unpublished
  35. Master’s Thesis, University of Canterbury, NZ

Cite this Article:

International Journal of Sciences is Open Access Journal.
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License.
Author(s) retain the copyrights of this article, though, publication rights are with Alkhaer Publications.

Issue April 2017

Volume 6, April 2017


Table of Contents


Order Print Copy

World-wide Delivery is FREE

Share this Issue with Friends:


Submit your Paper