I am working on a SEM where I hypothesize a causal chain where A influences B, which in turn influences C. The data are from a 2x2 between-subjects experiment, N = 297.

All the goodness of fit indices look very good: chi-square p-value = .07 CFI = .991 TLI = .989 RMSEA = .028, PCLOSE = .992 Both the A>B path and the B>C path are significant, as predicted.

Now, here is my problem. The A>C path is not significant, neither before nor after adding the B variable. Based on this:

  1. Would it be correct to claim that A has "an indirect effect" on C? Or what would be a more correct description?
  2. Is this a case of mediation or of some other form of indirect effect?
  3. Should there always be a A>C path in models with indirect effects of this kind?

Thanks so much in advance for your kind help!



Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.