Gå til innholdScholarGate
BibliotekMitt bibliotekPultenReview StudioAssistent
Logg inn
Polynomial Regression with Response Surface Analysis/Bevis
Metodebevisregister

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

Kilderegister

Siteringer kopiert ordrett fra metodens kilderegister. Ingen påstandsnivåverifisering er underforstått fra dem.

Polynomial Regression with Response Surface Analysis (Congruence Testing without Difference Scores)
Taksonomisk metoderegister · 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
Åpne full metode

Kuraterte påstander

Påstander lagret i bevishovedboken, hver med sin egen vurdering.

Ingen kuraterte påstander ennå

Denne visningen finner ikke opp en påstandsvurdering når hovedboken ikke har noen.

Relaterte metoder

Generert fra metodegrafen og vist som maskinforslåtte relasjoner – ingen bevispåstand er underforstått.

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.

Bevisstatus

Sources recorded, not reviewed

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

Kilder

2 registrerte siteringer, kopiert fra metodens kilderegister.

Handlinger

Åpne metodeside
ScholarGate

Et innholdsfokusert oppslagsbibliotek for forskningsmetoder — hva hver metode er, hvordan den fungerer, og hvor den kommer fra.

Åpne data (CC-BY)

Oppdag

  • Bibliotek
  • Søk i metoder…
  • Bla etter fagfelt
  • Fagfelt
  • Reise
  • Sammenlign
  • Hvilken metode?

Referanse

  • Fagområder
  • Atlas
  • Ordliste
  • Metodikk
  • Filosofi

Arbeidsområde

  • Mitt bibliotek
  • Pulten
  • Chat

Selskap

  • Om
  • Priser
  • Kontakt
  • Foreslå en metode

Oppføringene er sammenstilt fra publiserte kilder til referansebruk. Å kontrollere at informasjonen er korrekt og egnet for ditt eget bruk, er fremdeles ditt eget ansvar.

© 2026 ScholarGate · Et oppslagsbibliotek for forskningsmetoder
  • Personvern
  • Informasjonskapsler
  • Vilkår
  • Slett konto