I have 4 predictor, 1 mediator and 1 criterion variable(s). The direct effect for a partcular PV and the CV is positve (as hypothesised). However, when the mediator is entered into the model and the indirect effects are stipulated alongside the direct effects, the direct effect of this particular PV (to the CV) becomes large and inverse (conceptually unlikely).
When indirect and direct paths are entered in the model there is evidence of suppression (a beta above 1). could this be the problem?
Melvin C Y posted on Thursday, January 17, 2013 - 2:54 am
I am testing a few predictors (1-5 point scale) on an outcome variable (in SD units). Although the correlations are all very high, above .70, with one pair at .90, Mplus did not produce any errors and there were no negative residuals. Tech4 did not show any correlations above 1.0. As expected the standardized estimates were very high, between .7 to .95. However, the unstandardized solutions were much larger, with one path at 3.0 (in SD units). I ran the CI and it ranged from 2 to 6. Is this possible or due to suppression?
Hi there, I am performing SEM/path analysis to determine whether suppression effects exists with 5 predictor variables. I have models for each independent variable and a model that includes all 5 of my independent variables. Is there a way to test whether the path coefficient significantly increased from the first (individual models) to the second model that includes all predictors in MPlus?