For over three decades, methodologists have cautioned against the use of cross-sectional mediation analyses because they yield biased parameter estimates. Yet, cross-sectional mediation models persist in practice and sometimes represent the only analytic option. We propose a sensitivity analysis procedure to encourage a more principled use of cross-sectional mediation analysis, drawing inspiration from Gollob and Reichardt (1987, 1991). The procedure is based on the two-wave longitudinal mediation model and uses phantom variables for the baseline data. After a researcher provides ranges of possible values for cross-lagged, autoregressive, and baseline Y and M correlations among the phantom and observed variables, they can use the sensitivity analysis to identify longitudinal conditions in which conclusions from a cross-sectional model would differ most from a longitudinal model. To support the procedure, we first show that differences in sign and effect size of the b-path occur most often when the cross-sectional effect size of the b-path is small and the cross-lagged and the autoregressive correlations are equal or similar in magnitude. We then apply the procedure to cross-sectional analyses from real studies and compare the sensitivity analysis results to actual results from a longitudinal mediation analysis. While no statistical procedure can replace longitudinal data, these examples demonstrate that the sensitivity analysis can recover the effect that was actually observed in the longitudinal data if provided with the correct input information. Implications of the routine application of sensitivity analysis to temporal bias are discussed. R code for the procedure is provided in the online supplementary materials. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
Read full abstract