Talk:Mediation (statistics)

message: This should be moved to Mediation (statistics). If no objections are raised within 24h or so, I'll move it. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 21:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

message: This doesn't make any grammatical sense: "The inclusion of the mediating variable into the equation increases the relation between the treatment and outcome rather accounts for (decreases in terms of the size of the statistical relation)." I'm not sure what the author intended.
:Would this be clearer? (Although, somewhat longer!)  "The inclusion of the mediating variable into the equation increases the significance of the relationship between the IV and DV. That is, the mediating variable can not explain or account for the variance in the DV itself, yet its inclusion in the equation increases the significance of the IV-DV relationship." I'm still grappling with the idea of suppression, so if someone could confirm (and/or streamline!) the above, that'd be great! Skittled 00:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  does not make sense

message: This entry is written in the tradition of mediation as it exists within quantitative psychology. It is a good entry, but I don't think that the entry reflected that it was only concerned with a particular account of the concept of mediation. I feel that a proper place for this entry should be Mediation (quantative psychology) as the present entry does not say a whole lot about the statistical views on mediation (nothing on counterfactuals, graphical models, no mentioning of problems inherent in the extrapolation of the standard psych methods to non-linear models etc), but primarily deals with the statistics used my people with quantative psychology to quantify mediation. To my (limited) knowlegde there are seperate traditions of mediation in statistics, epidemiology and sociology, which are not covered by this entry. 
 --Udansk 09:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation (quantitative psychology) 

message: Please edit this obscure, dangling part of a sentence if you understand what it means. I didn't.
Sslevine (talk) 02:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obscure: "...and formally derived by Pearl" 

message: In some works(e.g., see M.Katz. Multivariable analysis: a practical guide for clinicians. 1999) mediator variables are called intervening variables. This seems to be worth mentioning.
The problem is that there is already an article Intervening variable. Some additional editing needed.
:I'm proposing that Intervening variable be merged here; every source I've seen that mentions both says that they're synonyms, and the other article is a ragged stub. Unless someone can draw a clear distinction between the two, I'm going to redirect intervening variable here. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  A synonym for mediator variable - "intervening variable" 

message: I believe "mediator" and "moderator" should be inverted in the box figures pertaining to the moderated mediation section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.240.215.211 (talk) 11:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The previous commenter is right. The figure captions are correct, but the labels inside the boxes are inverted. When I get a chance (and if I don't forget), I can make new figures to replace the current ones. But I'll have to learn how to embed figures; I assume this is tedious but doable and probably explained somewhere on the site. Someone else is welcome to beat me to it. 71.215.84.21 (talk) 09:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  There, I've edited the images and reuploaded them, so they should now be correct. If the images still show up wrong for you, just refresh the image page. Jeff H. (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  moderated mediation box figures 

message: This edit and four edits that immediately followed it were devoted mostly to fixing large numbers of conspicuous usage errors.  Let's recall some really basic stuff:
: right: X = 1
: wrong: X=1
The "1" should not be italicized and proper spacing should be used.
: correct section heading: Direct versus indirect effects
: incorrect section heading: Direct Versus Indirect Effects 
: correct TeX code: = NDE = C, \text{ independent of } m
: incorrect TeX code: = NDE = C,~{\rm independent~of}~m 
: correct TeX code:  E(Y\mid X=1) - E(Y\mid X=0)
: incorrect TeX code:  E(Y|X=1) - E(Y|X=0) 
: correct range of pages or years or other numbers: 241–275
: incorrect range of pages or years or other numbers 241-275
: 
These things are codified in WP:MOS and WP:MOSMATH and standard LaTeX usage conventions.
: 
I also change this:
:  1- NDE / TE = b_1 (c_2 +c_3) / (c_1 + b_0c_3 + b_1 (c_2 + c_3)). 
to this:
:  1- \frac{NDE}{TE} = \frac{b_1 (c_2 +c_3)}{c_1 + b_0c_3 + b_1 (c_2 + c_3)}. 
and a few similar things. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct usages