The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Some Common Myths About Centering Predictor Variables in Moderated Multiple Regression and Polynomial Regression
Abstract
Additive transformations are often offered as a remedy for the common problem of collinearity in moderated regression and polynomial regression analysis. As the authors demonstrate in this article, mean-centering reduces nonessential collinearity but not essential collinearity. Therefore, in most cases, mean-centering of predictors does not accomplish its intended goal. In this article, the authors discuss and explain, through derivation of equations and empirical examples, that mean-centering changes lower order regression coefficients but not the highest order coefficients, does not change the fit of regression models, does not impact the power to detect moderating effects, and does not alter the reliability of product terms. The authors outline the positive effects of mean-centering, namely, the increased interpretability of the results and its importance for moderator analysis in structural equations and multilevel analysis. It is recommended that researchers center their predictor variables when their variables do not have meaningful zero-points within the range of the variables to assist in interpreting the results.
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
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
The Sources of Four Commonly Reported Cutoff Criteria: What Did They Really Say?
Lance, C. E., Butts, M. M., & Michels, L. C. (2006) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428105284919 · Cited by 2,053
Interaction Effects in Multiple Regression
Jaccard, J., & Turrisi, R. (2003) · doi:10.4135/9781412984522 · Cited by 1,797
Testing Interaction Effects in LISREL: Examination and Illustration of Available Procedures
Cortina, J. M., Chen, G., & Dunlap, W. P. (2001) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/109442810144002 · Cited by 512
Cited by
afex: Analysis of Factorial Experiments
Singmann, H., Bolker, B., Westfall, J., Aust, F., & Ben-Shachar, M. S. (2012) · CRAN: Contributed Packages · doi:10.32614/cran.package.afex · Cited by 773
Cavanaugh, J., & Jacquemin, S. J. (2015) · Online Learning · doi:10.24059/olj.v19i2.454 · Cited by 182
Maruping, L. M., Daniel, S. L., & Cataldo, M. (2019) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2019/13928 · Cited by 64
Veronese, G., & Pepe, A. (2014) · American Journal of Orthopsychiatry · doi:10.1037/ort0000025 · Cited by 45
Interpretation of main effects in the presence of non-significant interaction effects.
Lorah, J. A. (2020) · The Quantitative Methods for Psychology · doi:10.20982/tqmp.16.1.p033 · Cited by 44
Metadata
- Authors
- Dalal, D. K., & Zickar, M. J.
- Venue
- Organizational Research Methods
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2011-12-28
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 339-362
- ISSN
- 1094-4281 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-7425
- OpenAlex
- W2113830656
- Cited by
- 469
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 10.02
- 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: Some Common Myths About Centering Predictor Variables in Moderated Multiple Regression and Polynomial Regression. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1094428111430540
- The paper
- Dalal, D. K., & Zickar, M. J. (2012). Some Common Myths About Centering Predictor Variables in Moderated Multiple Regression and Polynomial Regression. Organizational Research Methods. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428111430540
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.