Kristopher Preacher

Kristopher Preacher


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

18Years (2009-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 April 2012 in Communication Methods and Measures
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
KPKristopher Preacher
Kristopher Preacher
JSJames P. Selig
James P. Selig
Monte Carlo simulation is a useful but underutilized method of constructing confidence intervals for indirect effects in mediation analysis. The Monte Carlo confidence interval method has several distinct advantages over rival methods. Its performance is comparable to other widely accepted methods of interval construction, it can be used when only summary data are available, it can be used in situations where rival methods (e.g., bootstrapping and distribution of the product methods) are difficult or impossible, and it is not as computer-intensive as some other methods. In this study we discuss Monte Carlo confidence intervals for indirect effects, report the results of a simulation study comparing their performance to that of competing methods, demonstrate the method in applied examples, and discuss several software options for implementation in applied settings.

3 January 2015 in Annual Review of Psychology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
KPKristopher Preacher
Kristopher Preacher
Mediation processes are fundamental to many classic and emerging theoretical paradigms within psychology. Innovative methods continue to be developed to address the diverse needs of researchers studying such indirect effects. This review provides a survey and synthesis of four areas of active methodological research: (a) mediation analysis for longitudinal data, (b) causal inference for indirect effects, (c) mediation analysis for discrete and nonnormal variables, and (d) mediation assessment in multilevel designs. The aim of this review is to aid in the dissemination of developments in these four areas and suggest directions for future research.

1 June 2023 in Psychological Methods
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
HYHaley E. Yaremych
Haley E. Yaremych
KPKristopher Preacher
Kristopher Preacher
DHDonald Hedeker
Donald Hedeker
The topic of centering in multilevel modeling (MLM) has received substantial attention from methodologists, as different centering choices for lower-level predictors present important ramifications for the estimation and interpretation of model parameters. However, the centering literature has focused almost exclusively on continuous predictors, with little attention paid to whether and how categorical predictors should be centered, despite their ubiquity across applied fields. Alongside this gap in the methodological literature, a review of applied articles showed that researchers center categorical predictors infrequently and inconsistently. Algebraically and statistically, continuous and categorical predictors behave the same, but researchers using them do not, and for many, interpreting the effects of categorical predictors is not intuitive. Thus, the goals of this tutorial article are twofold: to clarify why and how categorical predictors should be centered in MLM, and to explain how multilevel regression coefficients resulting from centered categorical predictors should be interpreted. We first provide algebraic support showing that uncentered coding variables result in a conflated blend of the within- and between-cluster effects of a multicategorical predictor, whereas appropriate centering techniques yield level-specific effects. Next, we provide algebraic derivations to illuminate precisely how the within- and between-cluster effects of a multicategorical predictor should be interpreted under dummy, contrast, and effect coding schemes. Finally, we provide a detailed demonstration of our conclusions with an empirical example. Implications for practice, including relevance of our findings to categorical control variables (i.e., covariates), interaction terms with categorical focal predictors, and multilevel latent variable models, are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

1 January 2012 in Psychological Methods
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
KPKristopher Preacher
Kristopher Preacher
EMEdgar C. Merkle
Edgar C. Merkle
Model selection in structural equation modeling (SEM) involves using selection criteria to declare one model superior and treating it as a best working hypothesis until a better model is proposed. A limitation of this approach is that sampling variability in selection criteria usually is not considered, leading to assertions of model superiority that may not withstand replication. We illustrate that selection decisions using information criteria can be highly unstable over repeated sampling and that this uncertainty does not necessarily decrease with increases in sample size. Methods for addressing model selection uncertainty in SEM are evaluated, and implications for practice are discussed.

8 May 2015 in Journal of Medical Internet Research
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
KRKimber P Richter
Kimber P Richter
TSTheresa I Shireman
Theresa I Shireman
EEEdward F Ellerbeck
Edward F Ellerbeck
AMAlejandra mendoza
Alejandra mendoza
DCDelwyn Catley
Delwyn Catley
LLLeah Lambart
Leah Lambart
Journal of Medical Internet Research - International Scientific Journal for Medical Research, Information and Communication on the Internet

29 January 2010 in Multivariate Behavioral Research
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
GZGuangjian Zhang
Guangjian Zhang
KPKristopher Preacher
Kristopher Preacher
SLShanhong Luo
Shanhong Luo
This article is concerned with using the bootstrap to assign confidence intervals for rotated factor loadings and factor correlations in ordinary least squares exploratory factor analysis. Coverage performances of SE-based intervals, percentile intervals, bias-corrected percentile intervals, bias-corrected accelerated percentile intervals, and hybrid intervals are explored using simulation studies involving different sample sizes, perfect and imperfect models, and normal and elliptical data. The bootstrap confidence intervals are also illustrated using a personality data set of 537 Chinese men. The results suggest that the bootstrap is an effective method for assigning confidence intervals at moderately large sample sizes.