The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
History and Use of Relative Importance Indices in Organizational Research
Abstract
The search for a meaningful index of the relative importance of predictors in multiple regression has been going on for years. This type of index is often desired when the explanatory aspects of regression analysis are of interest. The authors define relative importance as the proportionate contribution each predictor makes to R 2, considering both the unique contribution of each predictor by itself and its incremental contribution when combined with the other predictors. The purposes of this article are to introduce the concept of relative importance to an audience of researchers in organizational behavior and industrial/organizational psychology and to update previous reviews of relative importance indices. To this end, the authors briefly review the history of research on predictor importance in multiple regression and evaluate alternative measures of relative importance. Dominance analysis and relative weights appear to be the most successful measures of relative importance currently available. The authors conclude by discussing how importance indices can be used in organizational research.
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
Rotundo, M., & Sackett, P. R. (2002) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.66 · Cited by 1,545 · cited 1×
“…Lehman & Simpson, 1992), by examining path coefficients (e.g., Borman, White, & Dorsey, 1995), or by creating uncorrelated variables in paper-people studies and interpreting the correlations or standardized regression coefficients (e.g., Hobson, Mendel, & Gibson, 1981; Rotundo & Sackett, 2002).”
BackgroundThe shifting basis of life satisfaction judgments across cultures: Emotions versus norms
Suh, E., Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Triandis, H. C. (1998) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.2.482 · Cited by 1,282
Cited by
Relative Importance for Linear Regression in R : The Package relaimpo
Grömping, U. (2006) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v017.i01 · Cited by 2,615
DERUE, D. S., NAHRGANG, J. D., WELLMAN, N., & HUMPHREY, S. E. (2011) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01201.x · Cited by 1,356
A meta-analysis of the dark triad and work behavior: a social exchange perspective
O'Boyle, E. H., Forsyth, D. R., Banks, G. C., & McDaniel, M. A. (2012) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0025679 · Cited by 1,331
The relation between emotional intelligence and job performance: A meta-analysis
O'Boyle, E. H., Humphrey, R. H., Pollack, J. M., Hawver, T. H., & Story, P. A. (2011) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.714 · Cited by 1,122
Emotional intelligence predicts academic performance: a meta-analysis
MacCann, C., Jiang, Y., Brown, L. E. R., Double, K. S., Bucich, M., & Minbashian, A. (2020) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000219 · Cited by 1,121
Metadata
- Authors
- Johnson, J. W., & Lebreton, J. M.
- Venue
- Organizational Research Methods
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2004-07
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 238-257
- ISSN
- 1094-4281 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-7425
- OpenAlex
- W2164098396
- Cited by
- 940
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 8.53
- 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: History and Use of Relative Importance Indices in Organizational Research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1094428104266510
- The paper
- Johnson, J. W., & Lebreton, J. M. (2004). History and Use of Relative Importance Indices in Organizational Research. Organizational Research Methods. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428104266510
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.
