2
$\begingroup$

I need some helps to interpret results of a hierarchical regression that included an interaction in the last stage.

  • Dependent Variable is Well-being.
  • Predictors are A-H, as well as the interaction of G and H.

Question

  1. Is stage 3 only for the interaction analysis purpose? Which stage should be used to report significant predictor G and H, stage 2 (without interaction) or stage 3 (with interaction)?

2.The variable G changed negative (stage 2) to positive (stage 3), while the interaction effect is negative. Still, relation between G and DV. is positive over all?

Thank you. enter image description here

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Welcome to the site, StudentY. The key thing to remember with interactions is that in a model with two interacting variables, the "main effects" coefficients for those variables are their coefficient at the 0 value of the other variable.

So, in your stage 3 model, the coefficient of G is the change in the outcome for a 1 unit change in G at H==0. Likewise the coefficient of H is the change in the outcome for a 1 unit change in H at G==0.

The interaction is the degree to which the slope of G is altered for every unit increase in H. Or equivalently, the degree to which the slope of H is altered for every unit increase in G.

It is easiest to understand these by graphing them. If you are using R, this can be done with the ggeffects package:

library(ggeffects)
ggpredict(stage3, c("G", "H")) %>% plot()

In terms of your questions:

  1. Is stage 3 only for the interaction analysis purpose? Which stage should be used to report significant predictor G and H, stage 2 (without interaction) or stage 3 (with interaction)?

Yes, stage 3 is the model you want to use to understand your interaction and stage 2 is the model to understand the unique effects of predictors G and H.

  1. The variable G changed negative (stage 2) to positive (stage 3), while the interaction effect is negative. Still, relation between G and DV. is positive over all?

The reason that variable G changed is because, as said above, in this model the coefficient on G is telling you about the association between G and the outcome at H==0. At H==0, the association is positive. But when you adjust for all levels of H in stage 2, the overall association between G and the outcome is negative.

By the way, when you report results from mixed models, you should report the variance estimates in addition to the coefficients.

$\endgroup$
6
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thank you so much for your detailed explanation. It is really helpful.After a slope test, only high in H can predict DV(well-being) while low and average H were not significant. $\endgroup$
    – StudentY
    Feb 17 '20 at 4:41
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thank you so much for your detailed explanation. It is really helpful. After a slope test, only "high in H" can predict DV(well-being) while low and average H were not significant. I can make an explicit statement only from one direction? $\endgroup$
    – StudentY
    Feb 17 '20 at 4:51
  • $\begingroup$ I am not familiar with the slope test you mention, @StudentY, and cannot speak to that. From the stage 2 model, H has a significant association with the outcome, adjusting for all the other covariates. That's what I would feel comfortable reporting. $\endgroup$
    – Erik Ruzek
    Feb 17 '20 at 15:06
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thank you again, Erik Ruzek!I appreciate it so much!! $\endgroup$
    – StudentY
    Feb 17 '20 at 15:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes, I'll do it definitely when I become eligible to vote after earning 15 reputation points! $\endgroup$
    – StudentY
    Feb 18 '20 at 1:33

Your Answer

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

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.