The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Centering Decisions in Hierarchical Linear Models: Implications for Research in Organizations
Abstract
Organizational researchers are increasingly interested in model ing the multilevel nature of organizational data. Although most organi zational researchers have chosen to investigate these models using traditional Ordinary Least Squares approaches, hierarchical linear models (i.e., random coefficient models) recently have been receiving increased attention. One of the key questions in using hierarchical linear models is how a researcher chooses to scale the Level-1 indepen dent variables (e.g., raw metric, grand mean centering, group mean centering), because it directly influences the interpretation of both the level-1 and level-2 parameters. Several scaling options are reviewed and discussed in light of four paradigms of multilevellcross-level research in organizational science: incremental (i.e., group variables add incremental prediction to individual level outcomes over and above individual level predictors), mediational (i.e., the influence of group level variables on individual outcomes are mediated by individual perceptions), moderational (i.e., the relationship between two individ ual level variables is moderated by a group level variable), and sepa rate (i.e., separate within group and between group models). The paper concludes with modeling recommendations for each of these paradigms and discusses the importance of matching the paradigm under which one is operating to the appropriate modeling strategy.
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
Levels issues in theory development, data collection and analysis
Klein, K. J., Dansereau, F., & Hall, R. J. (1994) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258703 · Cited by 1,607
Comments on “What theory is not”
DiMaggio, P. J. (1995) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393790 · Cited by 488
Cited by
Applied Longitudinal Data Analysis: Modeling Change and Event Occurrence
Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195152968.001.0001 · Cited by 10,647
MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. (2007) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085542 · Cited by 5,688
Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue.
Enders, C. K., & Tofighi, D. (2007) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.12.2.121 · Cited by 4,462
A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation
Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/a0020141 · Cited by 3,796
Transformational leadership, creativity, and organizational innovation
Gumusluoglu, L., & Ilsev, A. (2009) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.07.032 · Cited by 1,464
Metadata
- Authors
- Hofmann, D.
- Venue
- Journal of Management
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1998
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 623-641
- ISSN
- 0149-2063 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4235867356
- Cited by
- 2,109
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 6.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Centering Decisions in Hierarchical Linear Models: Implications for Research in Organizations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0149-2063(99)80077-4
- The paper
- Hofmann, D. (1998). Centering Decisions in Hierarchical Linear Models: Implications for Research in Organizations. Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0149-2063(99)80077-4
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.