Cited by 4,462Statistical Methods and Bayesian InferencePsychometric Methodologies and TestingSpatial and Panel Data Analysis

Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue.

Enders, Craig K., Tofighi, Davood·2007·Psychological Methods

Abstract

Appropriately centering Level 1 predictors is vital to the interpretation of intercept and slope parameters in multilevel models (MLMs). The issue of centering has been discussed in the literature, but it is still widely misunderstood. The purpose of this article is to provide a detailed overview of grand mean centering and group mean centering in the context of 2-level MLMs. The authors begin with a basic overview of centering and explore the differences between grand and group mean centering in the context of some prototypical research questions. Empirical analyses of artificial data sets are used to illustrate key points throughout. The article provides a number of practical recommendations designed to facilitate centering decisions in MLM applications.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/1082-989x.12.2.121

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • For non-binary communication variables, variables were person-mean centered to examine daily deviations from the participant's average level of the communication variable.

    “For non-binary communication variables (i.e., duration of communication, number of separate communications, initiation, student honesty, perceived support, and number of topics discussed), variables were person-mean centered to examine daily deviations from the participants average level of the communication variable (Enders & Tofighi, 2007).”
  • Individual and aggregated indicators of site-level well-being may exert different and independent effects on environmental income and reliance outcomes.

    “The rationale for doing this is that individual and aggregated indicators of site-level well-being may exert different and independent effects on environmental income and reliance outcomes (Enders & Tofighi, 2007).”

    From Environmental Income and Rural Livelihoods: A Global-Comparative Analysis (2014) · cites this paper as Enders & Tofighi, 2007

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Enders, C. K., & Tofighi, D.
Affiliations
Arizona State University (US)
Venue
Psychological Methods
Published
2007
Volume
12
Issue
2
Pages
121-138
ISSN
  • 1082-989X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1463
OpenAlex
W2028871521
Cited by
4,462
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 338 · 2025: 332 · 2024: 334 · 2023: 348 · 2022: 370 · 2021: 360 · 2020: 307 · 2019: 286 · 2018: 292 · 2017: 246 · 2016: 257 · 2015: 229 · 2014: 193 · 2013: 161 · 2012: 159
FWCI
43.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Methods (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Spatial and Panel Data Analysis
Keywords
centering, two-level model
MeSH terms
Cross-Sectional Studies, Data Collection, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Psychology, Experimental, Models, Statistical, Cluster Analysis, Linear Models, Least-Squares Analysis

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