Abstract

Moderated multiple regression (MMR) is frequently used to test moderation hypotheses in the behavioral and social sciences. In MMR with a categorical moderator, between-groups heteroscedasticity is not uncommon and can inflate Type I error rates or reduce statistical power. Compared with research on remedial procedures that can mitigate the effects of this violated assumption, less research attention has focused on statistical procedures that can be used to detect between-groups heteroscedasticity. In the current article, we briefly review such procedures. Then, using Monte Carlo methods, we compare the performance of various procedures that can be used to detect between-groups heteroscedasticity in MMR with a categorical moderator, including a heuristic method and a variant of a procedure suggested by O’Brien. Of the various procedures, the heuristic method had the greatest statistical power at the expense of inflated Type I error rates. Otherwise, assuming that the normality assumption has not been violated, Bartlett’s test generally had the greatest statistical power when direct pairing occurs (i.e., when the group with the largest sample size has the largest error variance). In contrast, O’Brien’s procedure tended to have the greatest power when there was indirect pairing (i.e., when the group with the largest sample size has the smallest error variance). We conclude with recommendations for researchers and practitioners in the behavioral and social sciences.

Highlights

  • Testing for the equality of regression slopes is frequently conducted in the behavioral and social sciences

  • A variety of procedures exist for detecting the effects of continuous and categorical moderators (StoneRomero & Liakhovitski, 2002; Zedeck, 1971), researchers have noted that moderated multiple regression (MMR) has become the major procedure for testing hypotheses involving categorical moderators (Aguinis, 2004; Overton, 2001; Sackett & Wilk, 1994; Shieh, 2009)

  • There exist a number of remedial procedures (Rosopa et al, 2013) that can be used to mitigate the effects of between-groups heteroscedasticity in MMR, including the use of statistical approximations (Alexander & Govern, 1994; DeShon & Alexander, 1994; Shieh, 2009), robust methods (Cribari-Neto, 2004; Long & Ervin, 2000; Wilcox, 2005), and weighted least squares regression (Overton, 2001; Rosopa, 2006), less research attention has focused on statistical procedures that can be used to detect between-groups heteroscedasticity in MMR

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Testing for the equality of regression slopes is frequently conducted in the behavioral and social sciences. Evidence of this can be found in research on differential prediction (Aguinis, Culpepper, & Pierce, 2010; American Educational Research Association [AERA], American Psychological Association [APA], & National Council on Measurement in Education [NCME], 1999; Saad & Sackett, 2002) and analysis of covariance (Fox, 2008; Huitema, 1980; Rutherford, 1992). In MMR, the form of heteroscedasticity that can manifest is one in which the error variance differs across the levels of a categorical moderator (e.g., gender; for a review, see Aguinis, 2004; DeShon & Alexander, 1996; Ng & Wilcox, 2010; Rosopa, Schaffer, & Schroeder, 2013; Wilcox, 1997), or stated another way, between-groups heteroscedasticity exists (Ng & Wilcox, 2010)

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.