Toward terminological, conceptual, and statistical clarity in the study of mediators and moderators: Examples from the child-clinical and pediatric psychology literatures.

TLDR

Child‑clinical and pediatric research on child adjustment has suffered from terminological, conceptual, and statistical inconsistencies in studies of mediation and moderation. The study defines and differentiates the terms mediating and moderating to promote greater clarity. The authors review recommended statistical strategies—multiple regression and structural equation modeling—to test mediation and moderation, discuss the distinction between mediated and indirect effects, and illustrate problematic and appropriate terminology usage in the literature.

Abstract

Numerous recent attempts to identify mediated and moderated effects in child-clinical and pediatric research on child adjustment have been characterized by terminological, conceptual, and statistical inconsistencies. To promote greater clarity, the terms mediating and moderating are defined and differentiated. Recommended statistical strategies that can be used to test for these effects are reviewed (i.e., multiple regression and structural equation modeling techniques). The distinction between mediated and indirect effects is also discussed. Examples of troublesome and appropriate uses of these terms in the child-clinical and pediatric psychology literatures are highlighted.