↓ Skip to main content

Understanding and misunderstanding group mean centering: a commentary on Kelley et al.’s dangerous practice

Overview of attention for article published in Quality & Quantity, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#32 of 728)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
21 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
67 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
176 Mendeley
Title
Understanding and misunderstanding group mean centering: a commentary on Kelley et al.’s dangerous practice
Published in
Quality & Quantity, November 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11135-017-0593-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew Bell, Kelvyn Jones, Malcolm Fairbrother

Abstract

Kelley et al. argue that group-mean-centering covariates in multilevel models is dangerous, since-they claim-it generates results that are biased and misleading. We argue instead that what is dangerous is Kelley et al.'s unjustified assault on a simple statistical procedure that is enormously helpful, if not vital, in analyses of multilevel data. Kelley et al.'s arguments appear to be based on a faulty algebraic operation, and on a simplistic argument that parameter estimates from models with mean-centered covariates must be wrong merely because they are different than those from models with uncentered covariates. They also fail to explain why researchers should dispense with mean-centering when it is central to the estimation of fixed effects models-a common alternative approach to the analysis of clustered data, albeit one increasingly incorporated within a random effects framework. Group-mean-centering is, in short, no more dangerous than any other statistical procedure, and should remain a normal part of multilevel data analyses where it can be judiciously employed to good effect.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 176 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 176 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 39 22%
Researcher 27 15%
Student > Master 23 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 8%
Lecturer 10 6%
Other 27 15%
Unknown 36 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 39 22%
Psychology 37 21%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 10 6%
Environmental Science 9 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 8 5%
Other 28 16%
Unknown 45 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 March 2024.
All research outputs
#2,231,119
of 25,651,057 outputs
Outputs from Quality & Quantity
#32
of 728 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,034
of 343,819 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Quality & Quantity
#2
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,651,057 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 728 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 343,819 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.