| Title |
A General Model for Testing Mediation and Moderation Effects
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Prevention Science, November 2008
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11121-008-0109-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Amanda J. Fairchild, David P. MacKinnon |
| Abstract |
This paper describes methods for testing mediation and moderation effects in a dataset, both together and separately. Investigations of this kind are especially valuable in prevention research to obtain information on the process by which a program achieves its effects and whether the program is effective for subgroups of individuals. A general model that simultaneously estimates mediation and moderation effects is presented, and the utility of combining the effects into a single model is described. Possible effects of interest in the model are explained, as are statistical methods to assess these effects. The methods are further illustrated in a hypothetical prevention program example. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,553 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 21 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 9 | <1% |
| Malaysia | 7 | <1% |
| Spain | 5 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 3 | <1% |
| Norway | 2 | <1% |
| Brazil | 2 | <1% |
| Australia | 2 | <1% |
| Germany | 2 | <1% |
| Other | 21 | 1% |
| Unknown | 1479 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 463 | 30% |
| Student > Master | 187 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 166 | 11% |
| Researcher | 155 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 74 | 5% |
| Other | 270 | 17% |
| Unknown | 238 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 368 | 24% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 336 | 22% |
| Social Sciences | 223 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 71 | 5% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 55 | 4% |
| Other | 202 | 13% |
| Unknown | 298 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 June 2020.
All research outputs
#6,938,918
of 24,212,485 outputs
Outputs from Prevention Science
#457
of 1,101 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,002
of 91,663 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Prevention Science
#6
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,212,485 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,101 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 91,663 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.