The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. ABSTRACTWe reviewed and critiqued the conduct and reporting of mediation analyses in 409 studies published in five leading organization studies journals over the past 25 years. The aim of our study was to learn from past practice and to use that knowledge to signal to researchers the importance of correctly applying mediation tests, and to facilitate the valid testing of mediation models and the reporting of mediation results in future studies. We content coded our sample for a wide range of characteristics and found that the majority of inferences of full and partial mediation were based on testing procedures that deviated significantly from procedures recommended by statisticians. In addition, the reporting of results was often incomplete and inefficient. We discussed and evaluated the findings of our study and made recommendations for future testing and reporting of results for mediation models. Mediation Testing 4As organizational behavior theorists have sought to move beyond descriptions and predictions of phenomena to explanations for how situational and personal factors influence organizational outcomes, statistical tests of mediation processes have become increasingly important to the scientific status of the field. While there are differences in terminology relative to mediation (i.e., indirect effects, intervening variables, mediation), multiple methods for testing mediation (see MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West & Sheets, 2002), and some differences in the criteria for claims of mediation (e.g., Baron & Kenny, 1986;James & Brett, 1984); there is general agreement that mediation occurs when the effects of one variable on another can be explained by a third, intervening variable (Baron & Kenny, 1986;James & Brett, 1984;MacKinnon et al., 2002;Shrout & Bolger, 2002).In this paper, we reviewed and critiqued the conduct and reporting of mediation analyses and Administrative Science Quarterly (ASQ) over the past 25 years. There are two major reasons for being concerned about the testing and reporting of mediation. First, if the mediation procedures are either incorrectly applied or the results misinterpreted, the validity of explanations for observed outcomes is called into question. Second, inconsistencies in the testing and reporting of mediation across studies obstructs the accumulation of knowledge about organizational phenomena, which is the primary aim of organizational research.The aim of our paper is to help researchers avoid the mistakes of the past. We examined authors' ...
This article may not exactly replicate the nal version published in the APA journal. It is not the copy of record.Additional information: Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-pro t purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details.
Publisher's copyright statement: NOTICE: this is the author's version of a work that was accepted for publication in Journal of research in personality. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A denitive version was subsequently published in Journal of research in personality, 44, 5, 2010, 10.1016/j.jrp.2010.07.004 Additional information: Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details.
The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.