How and why criteria defining moderators and mediators differ between the Baron & Kenny and MacArthur approaches
How and why criteria defining moderators and mediators differ between the Baron & Kenny and MacArthur approaches
复制标题
DOI：
10.1037/0278-6133.27.2(suppl.).s101
复制
发表时间：
2008-03-01
影响因子：
4.2
通讯作者：
Kupfer, David J.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kraemer, Helena Chmura;Kiernan, Michaela;Kupfer, David J.
目的：认识到在临床研究中调节剂和介导剂的作用越来越重要，寻求这两个术语的明确定义，以避免在临床研究中出现不一致、模糊和可能误导的结果。设计图：用于定义主持人和调解人提出的男爵和肯尼的方法，这已被长期用于社会/行为研究的标准，直接比较最近的麦克阿瑟的方法，修改了男爵和肯尼的标准提出的标准。结果如下：在澄清了方法之间的标准差异后，澄清了修改的理由，并考虑了对未来研究的设计和解释的影响。结论：研究人员可能会发现在麦克阿瑟方法中引入的修改更适合他们的研究目标，特别是如果他们的研究可能对决策产生直接影响。
Objective: In recognition of the increasingly important role of moderators and mediators in clinical research, clear definitions are sought of the two terms to avoid inconsistent, ambiguous, and possibly misleading results across clinical research studies. Design: The criteria used to define moderators and mediators proposed by the Baron & Kenny approach, which have been long used in social/behavioral research, are directly compared to the criteria proposed by the recent MacArthur approach, which modified the Baron & Kenny criteria. Results: After clarifying the differences in criteria between approaches, the rationale for the modifications is clarified and the implications for the design and interpretation of future studies considered. Conclusions: Researchers may find modifications introduced in the MacArthur approach more appropriate to their research objectives, particularly if their research might have a direct influence on decision making.