Skip to contentScholarGate
LibraryBookshelfDeskReview StudioAssistant
Sign in
Polynomial Regression with Response Surface Analysis/Evidence
Method evidence record

Polynomial Regression with Response Surface Analysis

Polynomial regression with response surface analysis is the methodological gold standard for testing congruence, fit, and agreement hypotheses in organizational behavior, introduced by Jeffrey Edwards and Mark Parry in 1993. It replaces the once-common practice of subtracting two scores and regressing the outcome on that difference, a practice that conflates several distinct effects and discards information. Instead, the two component variables are entered together with their squares and cross-product, and the resulting equation is interpreted as a three-dimensional surface relating the two predictors to the outcome. Edwards and Parry showed that difference scores impose untestable and usually false constraints, and that the polynomial approach recovers the constrained model as a special case while exposing far richer patterns. Shanock and colleagues' 2010 tutorial made the method accessible by providing surface coefficients, tests, and plotting tools. The technique is now standard wherever person-environment fit and rater agreement are studied.

Sources recorded, not reviewed

Source record

Citations copied verbatim from the method’s source record. No claim-level verification is inferred from them.

Polynomial Regression with Response Surface Analysis (Congruence Testing without Difference Scores)
Taxonomic method record · regression-model / organizational-behavior
  • Edwards, J. R., & Parry, M. E. (1993). On the use of polynomial regression equations as an alternative to difference scores in organizational research. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1577-1613. · DOI 10.2307/256822
  • Shanock, L. R., Baran, B. E., Gentry, W. A., Pattison, S. C., & Heggestad, E. D. (2010). Polynomial regression with response surface analysis: A powerful approach for examining moderation and overcoming limitations of difference scores. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(4), 543-554. · DOI 10.1007/s10869-010-9183-4
Open full method

Curated claims

Claims persisted in the evidence ledger, each with its own assessment.

No curated claims yet

This view does not invent a claim assessment when the ledger has none.

Related methods

Generated from the method graph and shown as machine-suggested relations — no evidence claim is inferred.

Used in the same domainJob Characteristics Modelmachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.Used in the same domainLeader-Member Exchange Scalemachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.Used in the same domainPerson-Organization Fitmachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.

Evidence status

Sources recorded, not reviewed

Bibliographic sources are present. Claim-level evidence review has not been performed.

Sources

2 recorded citations, copied from the method source record.

Actions

Open method page
ScholarGate

A content-first reference library for research methods — what each one is, how it works, and where it comes from.

Open data (CC-BY)

Explore

  • Library
  • Search the library…
  • Browse by field
  • Fields
  • Journey
  • Compare
  • Which method?

Reference

  • Subjects
  • Atlas
  • Glossary
  • Methodology
  • Philosophy

Your tools

  • Bookshelf
  • Desk
  • Chat

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Contact
  • Suggest a method

Entries are compiled from published sources for reference. Verifying the accuracy and suitability of any information for your own use remains your responsibility.

© 2026 ScholarGate · A research-method reference library
  • Privacy
  • Cookies
  • Terms
  • Delete account