Cited by 3,538Psychometric Methodologies and TestingStatistical Methods and ApplicationsStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference

On the practice of dichotomization of quantitative variables.

Open access
MacCallum, Robert C., Zhang, Shaobo, Preacher, Kristopher J., Rucker, Derek D.·2002·Psychological Methods

Abstract

The authors examine the practice of dichotomization of quantitative measures, wherein relationships among variables are examined after 1 or more variables have been converted to dichotomous variables by splitting the sample at some point on the scale(s) of measurement. A common form of dichotomization is the median split, where the independent variable is split at the median to form high and low groups, which are then compared with respect to their means on the dependent variable. The consequences of dichotomization for measurement and statistical analyses are illustrated and discussed. The use of dichotomization in practice is described, and justifications that are offered for such usage are examined. The authors present the case that dichotomization is rarely defensible and often will yield misleading results.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/1082-989x.7.1.19

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 42 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Allison, 1993, Some of the most common questions asked of statistical consultants: Our favorite responses and recommended readings., Genetic Psychology Monographs, 119, 155
  2. 2001, Publication manual of the American Psychological Association
  3. Lord, 1968, Statistical theories of mental test scores.
  4. Magnusson, 1966, Test theory.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
MacCallum, R. C., Zhang, S., Preacher, K. J., & Rucker, D. D.
Affiliations
The Ohio State University (US)
Venue
Psychological Methods
Published
2002
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
19-40
ISSN
  • 1082-989X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1463
OpenAlex
W2108096958
Cited by
3,538
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 282 · 2025: 170 · 2024: 149 · 2023: 134 · 2022: 183 · 2021: 211 · 2020: 204 · 2019: 179 · 2018: 180 · 2017: 223 · 2016: 208 · 2015: 208 · 2014: 184 · 2013: 187 · 2012: 138
FWCI
55.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Psychological Methods (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • KU ScholarWorks (The University of Kansas) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Keywords
dichotomization, quantitative variables, statistical analysis, change of variables, measurement error
MeSH terms
Humans, Models, Psychological, Psychology

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