CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,121Psychometric Methodologies and TestingJob Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorStatistical Methods and Applications

Variable-Centered, Person-Centered, and Person-Specific Approaches: Where Theory Meets the Method

Howard, Matt C., Hoffman, Michael E.·2018·Organizational Research Methods
DOI 10.1177/1094428117744021
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The variable-centered approach is favored in management and applied psychology, but the person-centered approach is quickly growing in popularity. A partial cause for this rise is the finer-grained detail that it allows. Many researchers may be unaware, however, that another approach may provide even finer-grained detail: the person-specific approach. In the current article, we (a) detail the purpose of each approach, (b) describe how to determine when each approach is most appropriate, and (c) delineate when the approaches diverge to give differing results. Through achieving these goals, we suggest that no single approach is the “best.” Instead, the choice of approach should be guided by the research question. To further emphasize this point, we provide illustrative examples using real data to answer three distinct research questions. The results show that each research question can be fully addressed only by the appropriate approach. To conclude, we directly suggest certain research areas that may benefit from the application of person-centered and person-specific approaches. Together, we believe that discussing variable-centered, person-centered, and person-specific approaches together may provide a more thorough understanding of each.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1094428117744021

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • A group-differential approach using group-level moderators does not provide insights into fine-grained differences at the level of the single individual.

    “However, such a group-differential approach, in which potential differences in susceptibility are conceptualized by group-level moderators (e.g., gender, age) does not provide insights into more fine-grained differences at the level of the single individual16.”

    From The effect of social media on well-being differs from adolescent to adolescent (2020) · cites this paper as [16]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Howard, M. C., & Hoffman, M. E.
Affiliations
  • University of South Alabama (US)
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
Corresponding author
Howard, Matt C.
ORCID
Howard, Matt C.
Venue
Organizational Research Methods
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2017-12-10
Volume
21
Issue
4
Pages
846-876
ISSN
  • 1094-4281 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-7425
DOI
10.1177/1094428117744021
OpenAlex
W2773695754
Cited by
1,121
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 291 · 2025: 215 · 2024: 178 · 2023: 140 · 2022: 105 · 2021: 110 · 2020: 58 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 5
FWCI
19.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Organizational Research Methods (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Applications
Keywords
variable-centered approach, person-centered approach, research question selection, individual differences, within-person variability, between-person variation, methodological choices

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