The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Centring in regression analyses: a strategy to prevent errors in statistical inference
Open accessAbstract
Regression analyses are perhaps the most widely used statistical tools in medical research. Centring in regression analyses seldom appears to be covered in training and is not commonly reported in research papers. Centring is the process of selecting a reference value for each predictor and coding the data based on that reference value so that each regression coefficient that is estimated and tested is relevant to the research question. Using non‐centred data in regression analysis, which refers to the common practice of entering predictors in their original score format, often leads to inconsistent and misleading results. There is very little cost to unnecessary centring, but the costs of not centring when it is necessary can be major. Thus, it would be better always to centre in regression analyses. We propose a simple default centring strategy: (1) code all binary independent variables +1/2; (2) code all ordinal independent variables as deviations from their median; (3) code all ‘dummy variables’ for categorical independent variables having m possible responses as 1−1/m and −1/m instead of 1 and 0; (4) compute interaction terms from centred predictors. Using this default strategy when there is no compelling evidence to centre protects against most errors in statistical inference and its routine use sensitizes users to centring issues. Copyright © 2004 Whurr Publishers Ltd.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Mediators and Moderators of Treatment Effects in Randomized Clinical Trials
Kraemer, H. C., Wilson, G. T., Fairburn, C. G., & Agras, W. S. (2002) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archpsyc.59.10.877 · Cited by 2,562
Self-citationKraemer, H. C., Stice, E., Kazdin, A., Offord, D., & Kupfer, D. (2001) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.158.6.848 · Cited by 1,712
Self-citationREM sleep facilitation of adaptive waking behavior: A review of the literature.
McGrath, M. J., & Cohen, D. B. (1978) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.85.1.24 · Cited by 217
Cited by
Chmura Kraemer, H., Kiernan, M., Essex, M., & Kupfer, D. J. (2008) · Health Psychology · doi:10.1037/0278-6133.27.2(suppl.).s101 · Cited by 600
DeRubeis, R. J., Cohen, Z. D., Forand, N. R., Fournier, J. C., Gelfand, L. A., & Lorenzo-Luaces, L. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0083875 · Cited by 509
Giese-Davis, J., Collie, K., Rancourt, K. M. S., Neri, E., Kraemer, H. C., & Spiegel, D. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2010.28.4455 · Cited by 458
Self-citationTreatment selection in depression.
Cohen, Z. D., & DeRubeis, R. J. (2018) · Annual Review of Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050817-084746 · Cited by 435
Fournier, J. C., DeRubeis, R. J., Shelton, R. C., Hollon, S. D., Amsterdam, J. D., & Gallop, R. (2009) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0015401 · Cited by 340
Metadata
- Authors
- Kraemer, H. C., & Blasey, C. M.
- Venue
- International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2004-08
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 141-151
- ISSN
- 1049-8931 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-0657
- OpenAlex
- W1989537794
- Cited by
- 501
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 11.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Centring in regression analyses: a strategy to prevent errors in statistical inference. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/mpr.170
- The paper
- Kraemer, H. C., & Blasey, C. M. (2004). Centring in regression analyses: a strategy to prevent errors in statistical inference. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research. https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.170
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.