Cited by 1,341Advanced Statistical Methods and ModelsStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceAnomaly Detection Techniques and Applications

Best-practice recommendations for defining, identifying, and handling outliers

Aguinis, Herman, Gottfredson, Ryan K., Joo, Harry·2013·Organizational Research Methods

Abstract

The presence of outliers, which are data points that deviate markedly from others, is one of the most enduring and pervasive methodological challenges in organizational science research. We provide evidence that different ways of defining, identifying, and handling outliers alter substantive research conclusions. Then, we report results of a literature review of 46 methodological sources (i.e., journal articles, book chapters, and books) addressing the topic of outliers, as well as 232 organizational science journal articles mentioning issues about outliers. Our literature review uncovered (a) 14 unique and mutually exclusive outlier definitions, 39 outlier identification techniques, and 20 different ways of handling outliers; (b) inconsistencies in how outliers are defined, identified, and handled in various methodological sources; and (c) confusion and lack of transparency in how outliers are addressed by substantive researchers. We offer guidelines, including decision-making trees, that researchers can follow to define, identify, and handle error, interesting, and influential (i.e., model fit and prediction) outliers. Although our emphasis is on regression, structural equation modeling, and multilevel modeling, our general framework forms the basis for a research agenda regarding outliers in the context of other data-analytic approaches. Our recommendations can be used by authors as well as journal editors and reviewers to improve the consistency and transparency of practices regarding the treatment of outliers in organizational science research.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1094428112470848

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Together with its extreme baseline score and qualitative differences from other sites, the sensitivity analyses support the exclusion of Site A from the analytic sample.

    “Together with its extreme baseline score and qualitative differences from other sites in the study, these sensitivity analyses support the exclusion of Site A from the analytic sample (Aguinis, Gottfredson, & Joo, 2013).”

    From Improving relationship quality in group care settings: The impact of implementing the CARE model (2020) · cites this paper as Aguinis, Gottfredson, & Joo, 2013

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Aguinis, H., Gottfredson, R. K., & Joo, H.
Affiliations
Indiana University Bloomington (US)
Corresponding author
Aguinis, Herman
Venue
Organizational Research Methods
Published
2013-01-14
Volume
16
Issue
2
Pages
270-301
ISSN
  • 1094-4281 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-7425
OpenAlex
W2099506356
Cited by
1,341
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 172 · 2025: 197 · 2024: 140 · 2023: 156 · 2022: 143 · 2021: 150 · 2020: 101 · 2019: 88 · 2018: 63 · 2017: 38 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 34 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 1
FWCI
24.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Organizational Research Methods (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Statistical Methods and Models
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Anomaly Detection Techniques and Applications
Keywords
outliers, outlier detection, outlier handling, regression analysis, structural equation modeling, multilevel modeling, research transparency, methodological consistency, decision tree

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