The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Ten Difference Score Myths
Abstract
Difference scores have been widely used in studies of fit, similarity, and agreement. Despite their widespread use, difference scores suffer from numerous methodological problems. These problems can be mitigated or avoided with polynomial regression analysis, and this method has become increasingly prevalent during the past decade. Unfortunately, a number of potentially damaging myths have begun to spread regarding the drawbacks of difference scores and the advantages of polynomial regression. If these myths go unchecked, difference scores and the problems they create are likely to persist in studies of fit, similarity, and agreement. This article reviews 10 difference score myths and attempts to dispel these myths, focusing on studies conducted since polynomial regression was formally introduced as an alternative to difference scores.
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
Regression Diagnostics: Identifying Influential Data and Sources of Collinearity
Belsley, D. A., Kuh, E., & Welsch, R. E. (1980) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/0471725153 · Cited by 7,297
EDWARDS, J. R., & PARRY, M. E. (1993) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256822 · Cited by 1,534
Self-citationDEVELOPMENT OF A LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE: A LONGITUDINAL TEST.
BAUER, T. N., & GREEN, S. G. (1996) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/257068 · Cited by 944
Principles and procedures of exploratory data analysis.
Behrens, J. T. (1997) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.2.2.131 · Cited by 465
Variance in faking across noncognitive measures.
McFarland, L. A., & Ryan, A. M. (2000) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.5.812 · Cited by 410
Cited by
The reliability paradox: Why robust cognitive tasks do not produce reliable individual differences
Hedge, C., Powell, G., & Sumner, P. (2018) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-017-0935-1 · Cited by 1,457
Grant, A. M. (2008) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.108 · Cited by 1,114
Gagné, M., Forest, J., Vansteenkiste, M., Crevier-Braud, L., van den Broeck, A., Aspeli, A. K., Bellerose, J., Benabou, C., Chemolli, E., Güntert, S. T., et al. (2015) · European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.1080/1359432x.2013.877892 · Cited by 1,051
Consequences of work‐home segmentation or integration: a person‐environment fit perspective
Kreiner, G. E. (2006) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.386 · Cited by 759
A Critical Review of Self-perceptions and the Positive Illusory Bias in Children with ADHD
Owens, J. S., Goldfine, M. E., Evangelista, N. M., Hoza, B., & Kaiser, N. M. (2007) · Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10567-007-0027-3 · Cited by 552
Metadata
- Authors
- Edwards, J. R.
- Venue
- Organizational Research Methods
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2001-07
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 265-287
- ISSN
- 1094-4281 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-7425
- OpenAlex
- W2155753114
- Cited by
- 676
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 3.32
- 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: Ten Difference Score Myths. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/109442810143005
- The paper
- Edwards, J. R. (2001). Ten Difference Score Myths. Organizational Research Methods. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810143005
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.
