Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39420243›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of psychology : Journal international de psychologie2025

How and why to follow best practices for testing mediation models with missing data.

Alexander M Schoemann, E Whitney G Moore, Gokhan Yagiz

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of psychology : Journal international de psychologie, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

3 authors.

Alexander M SchoemannDepartment of Psychology, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8479-8798
E Whitney G MooreDepartment of Kinesiology, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2482-1957
Gokhan YagizDepartment of Kinesiology, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mediation models are often conducted in psychology to understand mechanisms and processes of change. However, current best practices for handling missing data in mediation models are not always used by researchers. Missing data methods, such as full information maximum likelihood (FIML) and multiple imputation (MI), are best practice methods of handling missing data. However, FIML or MI are rarely used to handle missing data when testing mediation models, instead analyses used listwise deletion methods, the default in popular software. Compared to listwise deletion, the implementation of FIML or MI to handle missing data reduces parameter estimate bias, while maintaining the sample collected to maximise power and generalizability of results. In this tutorial, we review how to implement full-information maximum likelihood and MI using best practice methods of testing the indirect effect. We demonstrate how to implement these methods using both R and JASP, which are both free, open-source software programmes and provide online supplemental materials for these demonstrations. These methods are demonstrated using two example analyses, one using a cross-sectional mediation model and one using a longitudinal mediation model examining how student-athletes reported worry about COVID predicts their perceived stress, which in turn predicts satisfaction with life.

Indexed as

Mediation AnalysisCOVID-19Cross-Sectional StudiesData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansLikelihood FunctionsModels, PsychologicalModels, StatisticalSoftwareLongitudinalMediationMissing dataR software

Identifiers

PMID39420243
PMCPMC11625877

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.