Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 285

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The fixed versus random effects debate and how it relates to centering in multilevel modeling.

Open access
Hamaker, Ellen L., Muthén, Bengt·2020·Psychological Methods

Abstract

In many disciplines researchers use longitudinal panel data to investigate the potentially causal relationship between 2 variables. However, the conventions and concerns vary widely across disciplines. Here we focus on 2 concerns, that is: (a) the concern about random effects versus fixed effects, which is central in the (micro)econometrics/sociology literature; and (b) the concern about grand mean versus group (or person) mean centering, which is central in the multilevel literature associated with disciplines like psychology and educational sciences. We show that these 2 concerns are actually addressing the same underlying issue. We discuss diverse modeling methods based on either multilevel regression modeling with the data in long format, or structural equation modeling with the data in wide format, and compare these approaches with simulated data. We extend the multilevel model with random slopes and discuss the consequences of this. Subsequently, we provide guidelines on how to choose between the diverse modeling options. We illustrate the use of these guidelines with an empirical example based on intensive longitudinal data, in which we consider both a time-varying and a time-invariant covariate. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/met0000239

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Show all 18 references

Cited by

See all 285

Metadata

Authors
Hamaker, E. L., & Muthén, B.
Venue
Psychological Methods
Published
2020-06
Volume
25
Issue
3
Pages
365-379
ISSN
  • 1082-989X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1463
OpenAlex
W2981018580
Cited by
285
References
18
FWCI
21.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: The fixed versus random effects debate and how it relates to centering in multilevel modeling. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/met0000239
The paper
Hamaker, E. L., & Muthén, B. (2020). The fixed versus random effects debate and how it relates to centering in multilevel modeling. Psychological Methods. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000239

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.