Skip to content

Understanding and misunderstanding group mean centering: a commentary on Kelley et al.’s dangerous practice

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2031-2036
Number of pages6
JournalQuality and Quantity
Volume52
Issue number5
Early online date7 Nov 2017
DOIs
DateAccepted/In press - 7 Nov 2017
DateE-pub ahead of print - 7 Nov 2017
DatePublished (current) - Sep 2018

Abstract

Kelley et al. argue that group-mean-centering covariates in multilevel models is dangerous, since—they claim—it generates results that are biased and misleading. We argue instead that what is dangerous is Kelley et al.’s unjustified assault on a simple statistical procedure that is enormously helpful, if not vital, in analyses of multilevel data. Kelley et al.’s arguments appear to be based on a faulty algebraic operation, and on a simplistic argument that parameter estimates from models with mean-centered covariates must be wrong merely because they are different than those from models with uncentered covariates. They also fail to explain why researchers should dispense with mean-centering when it is central to the estimation of fixed effects models—a common alternative approach to the analysis of clustered data, albeit one increasingly incorporated within a random effects framework. Group-mean-centering is, in short, no more dangerous than any other statistical procedure, and should remain a normal part of multilevel data analyses where it can be judiciously employed to good effect.

    Research areas

  • Fixed effects, Group-mean-centering, Multilevel models, Mundlak, Random effects

Download statistics

No data available

Documents

Documents

DOI

View research connections

Related faculties, schools or groups