Appropriate Moderated Regression and Inappropriate Research Strategy: A Demonstration of Information Loss Due to Scale Coarseness

Paunonen and Jackson (1988) demonstrated that stepwise moderated regression provides a test of interaction effects that protects the nominal Type I error rate. However, the stepwise procedure has also been characterized as failing to detect interaction effects in empirical studies. This issues has led to questions regarding the method's statistical power in applied research. It is demonstrated that, because of a research strategy frequently used in empirical investigations, the probability of Type II error in detecting a true interaction effect is unknown.

[1]  David R. Saunders,et al.  The "moderator variable" as a useful tool in prediction. , 1955 .

[2]  James Shanteau,et al.  Component Processes in Risky Decision Making. , 1974 .

[3]  R. Likert.  “Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes, A” , 2022, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[4]  Spurious Product Correlation1 , 1976 .

[5]  Philip Bobko,et al.  A solution to some dilemmas when testing hypotheses about ordinal interactions. , 1986 .

[6]  G. Jenkins,et al.  A Monte Carlo study of factors affecting three indices of composite scale reliability. , 1977 .

[7]  L. E. Jones,et al.  Analysis of multiplicative combination rules when the causal variables are measured with error. , 1983 .

[8]  Jacob Cohen,et al.  Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences , 1979 .

[9]  Clairice T. Veit,et al.  Scale convergence as a criterion for rescaling: Information integration with difference, ratio, and averaging tasks , 1974 .

[10]  Peter Tyrer,et al.  The Effect of Number of Rating Scale Categories on Levels of Interrater Reliability : A Monte Carlo Investigation , 1985 .

[11]  L. Cronbach.  Statistical tests for moderator variables: flaws in analyses recently proposed , 1987 .

[12]  D. R. Saunders.  Moderator Variables in Prediction , 1956 .

[13]  Michael J. Stahl,et al.  Modeling effort decisions with behavioral decision theory: Toward an individual differences model of expectancy theory , 1981 .

[14]  R Drazin,et al.  An Examination of Alternative Forms of Fit in Contingency Theory. , 1984 .

[15]  A. Sockloff,et al.  The Analysis of Nonlinearity Via Linear Regression with Polynomial and Product Variables: An Examination , 1976 .

[16]  P. F. Miller.  Statistical Procedures and their Mathematical Bases , 1941, Nature.

[17]  J. D. Sherman,et al.  Failures to detect moderating effects with ordinary least squares-moderated multiple regression: Some reasons and a remedy. , 1986 .

[18]  C. Russell.  Individual Decision Processes in an Assessment Center , 1985 .

[19]  D. Jackson,et al.  Type I error rates for moderated multiple regression analysis. , 1988 .

[20]  Norman H. Anderson,et al.  Methods of information integration theory , 1982 .

[21]  Jacob Cohen.  The Cost of Dichotomization , 1983 .

[22]  A. V. D. Ven,et al.  Alternative forms of fit in contingency theory. , 1985 .

[23]  H. J. Arnold,et al.  A Test of the Validity of the Multiplicative Hypothesis of Expectancy- Valence Theories of Work Motivation , 1981 .

[24]  K. Norman.  Importance of factors in the review of grant proposals. , 1986 .

[25]  J. L. Rasmussen.  Analysis of Likert-scale data: A reinterpretation of Gregoire and Driver. , 1989 .

[26]  D. Cox.  Note on Grouping , 1957 .

[27]  G. Chow.  Tests of equality between sets of coefficients in two linear regressions (econometrics voi 28 , 1960 .

[28]  A. L. Edwards,et al.  A comparison of the Thurstone and Likert techniques of attitude scale construction. , 1946, The Journal of applied psychology.