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.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 2031-2036 |
| Number of pages | 6 |
| Journal | Quality and Quantity |
| Volume | 52 |
| Issue number | 5 |
| Early online date | 7 Nov 2017 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Sept 2018 |
Keywords
- Fixed effects
- Group-mean-centering
- Multilevel models
- Mundlak
- Random effects
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Understanding and misunderstanding group mean centering: a commentary on Kelley et al.’s dangerous practice'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver