Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36183090›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2022

Required sample size to detect mediation in 3-level implementation studies.

Nathaniel J Williams, Kristopher J Preacher, Paul D Allison, David S Mandell, Steven C Marcus

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

5 authors.

Nathaniel J WilliamsInstitute for the Study of Behavioral Health and Addiction, Boise State University, 1910 University Drive, Boise, ID, 83725-1940, USA. natewilliams@boisestate.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-3948-7480
Kristopher J PreacherDepartment of Psychology & Human Development, Vanderbilt University, 230 Appleton Place, Nashville, TN, 37203-5721, USA.
Paul D AllisonStatistical Horizons LLC, P.O. Box 282, Ardmore, PA, 19003, USA.
David S MandellPenn Center for Mental Health, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, 3535 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA.
Steven C MarcusPenn Center for Mental Health, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, 3535 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA.

Funding

Transforming mental health delivery through behavioral economics and implementation scienceP50MH113840 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI BEIDAS, RINAD SARY, BUTTENHEIM, ALISON MEREDITH · 2017 to 2020
$6.6M
NIMH NIH HHS P50 MH113840NIMH NIH HHS P50MH113840
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStatistical tests of mediation are important for advancing implementation science; however, little research has examined the sample sizes needed to detect mediation in 3-level designs (e.g., organization, provider, patient) that are common in implementation research. Using a generalizable Monte Carlo simulation method, this paper examines the sample sizes required to detect mediation in 3-level designs under a range of conditions plausible for implementation studies.

methodStatistical power was estimated for 17,496 3-level mediation designs in which the independent variable (X) resided at the highest cluster level (e.g., organization), the mediator (M) resided at the intermediate nested level (e.g., provider), and the outcome (Y) resided at the lowest nested level (e.g., patient). Designs varied by sample size per level, intraclass correlation coefficients of M and Y, effect sizes of the two paths constituting the indirect (mediation) effect (i.e., X→M and M→Y), and size of the direct effect. Power estimates were generated for all designs using two statistical models-conventional linear multilevel modeling of manifest variables (MVM) and multilevel structural equation modeling (MSEM)-for both 1- and 2-sided hypothesis tests.

resultsFor 2-sided tests, statistical power to detect mediation was sufficient (≥0.8) in only 463 designs (2.6%) estimated using MVM and 228 designs (1.3%) estimated using MSEM; the minimum number of highest-level units needed to achieve adequate power was 40; the minimum total sample size was 900 observations. For 1-sided tests, 808 designs (4.6%) estimated using MVM and 369 designs (2.1%) estimated using MSEM had adequate power; the minimum number of highest-level units was 20; the minimum total sample was 600. At least one large effect size for either the X→M or M→Y path was necessary to achieve adequate power across all conditions.

conclusionsWhile our analysis has important limitations, results suggest many of the 3-level mediation designs that can realistically be conducted in implementation research lack statistical power to detect mediation of highest-level independent variables unless effect sizes are large and 40 or more highest-level units are enrolled. We suggest strategies to increase statistical power for multilevel mediation designs and innovations to improve the feasibility of mediation tests in implementation research.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalComputer SimulationData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansLatent Class AnalysisSample SizeIndirect effectsMediationMplusMultilevelStatistical power

Identifiers

PMID36183090
PMCPMC9526963

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.