Detecting Between-Groups Heteroscedasticity in Moderated Multiple Regression With a Continuous Predictor and a Categorical Moderator

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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Patrick J. Rosopa, Amber N. Schroeder, Jessica L. Doll
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: SAGE Publishing 2016-01-01
Series:SAGE Open
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015621115
id doaj-8af7faa611c3478889b545f924c7f2f1
record_format Article
spelling doaj-8af7faa611c3478889b545f924c7f2f12020-11-25T03:03:22ZengSAGE PublishingSAGE Open2158-24402016-01-01610.1177/215824401562111510.1177_2158244015621115Detecting Between-Groups Heteroscedasticity in Moderated Multiple Regression With a Continuous Predictor and a Categorical ModeratorPatrick J. Rosopa0Amber N. Schroeder1Jessica L. Doll2Clemson University, SC, USAWestern Kentucky University, Bowling Green, USACoastal Carolina University, Conway, SC, USAModerated 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.https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015621115
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Patrick J. Rosopa
Amber N. Schroeder
Jessica L. Doll
spellingShingle Patrick J. Rosopa
Amber N. Schroeder
Jessica L. Doll
Detecting Between-Groups Heteroscedasticity in Moderated Multiple Regression With a Continuous Predictor and a Categorical Moderator
SAGE Open
author_facet Patrick J. Rosopa
Amber N. Schroeder
Jessica L. Doll
author_sort Patrick J. Rosopa
title Detecting Between-Groups Heteroscedasticity in Moderated Multiple Regression With a Continuous Predictor and a Categorical Moderator
title_short Detecting Between-Groups Heteroscedasticity in Moderated Multiple Regression With a Continuous Predictor and a Categorical Moderator
title_full Detecting Between-Groups Heteroscedasticity in Moderated Multiple Regression With a Continuous Predictor and a Categorical Moderator
title_fullStr Detecting Between-Groups Heteroscedasticity in Moderated Multiple Regression With a Continuous Predictor and a Categorical Moderator
title_full_unstemmed Detecting Between-Groups Heteroscedasticity in Moderated Multiple Regression With a Continuous Predictor and a Categorical Moderator
title_sort detecting between-groups heteroscedasticity in moderated multiple regression with a continuous predictor and a categorical moderator
publisher SAGE Publishing
series SAGE Open
issn 2158-2440
publishDate 2016-01-01
description 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.
url https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015621115
work_keys_str_mv AT patrickjrosopa detectingbetweengroupsheteroscedasticityinmoderatedmultipleregressionwithacontinuouspredictorandacategoricalmoderator
AT ambernschroeder detectingbetweengroupsheteroscedasticityinmoderatedmultipleregressionwithacontinuouspredictorandacategoricalmoderator
AT jessicaldoll detectingbetweengroupsheteroscedasticityinmoderatedmultipleregressionwithacontinuouspredictorandacategoricalmoderator
_version_ 1724686093993902080