Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35757595›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied statistics2022

Negligible interaction test for continuous predictors.

Yasaman Jabbari, Robert Cribbie

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied statistics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Yasaman JabbariDepartment of Psychology, Neuroscience & Behaviour, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Robert CribbieDepartment of Psychology, York University, Toronto, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9247-497X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Behavioral science researchers are often interested in whether there is negligible interaction among continuous predictors of an outcome variable. For example, a researcher might be interested in demonstrating that the effect of perfectionism on depression is very consistent across age. In this case, the researcher is interested in assessing whether the interaction between the predictors is too small to be meaningful. Unfortunately, most researchers address the above research question using a traditional association-based null hypothesis test (e.g. regression) where their goal is to fail to reject the null hypothesis of no interaction. Common problems with traditional tests are their sensitivity to sample size and their opposite (and hence inappropriate) hypothesis setup for finding a negligible interaction effect. In this study, we investigated a method for testing for negligible interaction between continuous predictors using unstandardized and standardized regression-based models and equivalence testing. A Monte Carlo study provides evidence for the effectiveness of the equivalence-based test relative to traditional approaches.

Indexed as

interactionlinear modelsModerationmultiple regressionnegligible interaction

Identifiers

PMID35757595
PMCPMC9225631

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.