The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Being Both Too Liberal and Too Conservative: The Perils of Treating Grouped Data as though They Were Independent
Abstract
Organizational data are inherently nested; consequently, lower level data are typically influenced by higher level grouping factors. Stated another way, almost all lower level organizational data have some degree of nonindependence due to work group, geographic membership, and so on. Unaccounted-for nonindependence can be problematic because it affects standard error estimates used to determine statistical significance. Currently, researchers interested in modeling higher level variables routinely use multilevel modeling techniques to avoid well-known problems with Type I error rates. In this article, however, the authors examine how nonindependence affects statistical inferences in cases in which researchers are interested only in relationships among lower level variables. They show that ignoring nonindependence when modeling only lower level variables reduces power (increases Type II errors), and through simulations, the authors show where this loss of power is most pronounced.
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
Mixed-Effects Models in S and S-PLUS
(2001) · Technometrics · doi:10.1198/tech.2001.s574 · Cited by 9,278
Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences
Kirk, R. (2013) · doi:10.4135/9781483384733 · Cited by 8,539
Hox, J., Moerbeek, M., & van de Schoot, R. (2002) · doi:10.4324/9781410604118 · Cited by 2,419
Using SAS PROC MIXED to Fit Multilevel Models, Hierarchical Models, and Individual Growth Models
Singer, J. D. (1998) · Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics · doi:10.2307/1165280 · Cited by 1,092
Mixed-Effects Models in S and S-PLUS
(2000) · Statistics and Computing · doi:10.1007/b98882 · Cited by 930
Group Size, ICC Values, and Group-Level Correlations: A Simulation
Bliese, P. D. (1998) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/109442819814001 · Cited by 636 · cited 5×
“In the ANOVA literature, ρ is commonly referred to as the ICC(1) or ICC(1,1) (see Bliese, 2000, for a complete discussion of terminology). In terms of interpretation, ρ is an estimate of the amount of total variance explained by group membership. Thus, a value of .10 indicates that 10% of the variance in any one indiv…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citation
Cited by
Gong, Y., Huang, J.-C., & Farh, J.-L. (2009) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2009.43670890 · Cited by 1,914
Innovative Behavior in the Workplace: The Role of Performance and Image Outcome Expectations
Yuan, F., & Woodman, R. W. (2010) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2010.49388995 · Cited by 1,557
Understanding social media effects across seller, retailer, and consumer interactions
Rapp, A., Beitelspacher, L. S., Grewal, D., & Hughes, D. E. (2013) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/s11747-013-0326-9 · Cited by 624
Salmivalli, C., Voeten, M., & Poskiparta, E. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology · doi:10.1080/15374416.2011.597090 · Cited by 597
WHEN AND HOW DIVERSITY BENEFITS TEAMS: THE IMPORTANCE OF TEAM MEMBERS' NEED FOR COGNITION
Kearney, E., Gebert, D., & Voelpel, S. C. (2009) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2009.41331431 · Cited by 591
Metadata
- Authors
- Bliese, P. D., & Hanges, P. J.
- Venue
- Organizational Research Methods
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2004-10
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 400-417
- ISSN
- 1094-4281 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-7425
- OpenAlex
- W2057932134
- Cited by
- 412
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 8.86
- 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: Being Both Too Liberal and Too Conservative: The Perils of Treating Grouped Data as though They Were Independent. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1094428104268542
- The paper
- Bliese, P. D., & Hanges, P. J. (2004). Being Both Too Liberal and Too Conservative: The Perils of Treating Grouped Data as though They Were Independent. Organizational Research Methods. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428104268542
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.