A cross-level interaction is said to occur when the effects of client or employee characteristics interact with organizational characteristics to influence an employee or client outcome variable. Hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) is briefly described, particularly as it applies to the study of cross-level interactions. HLM is then compared to moderated multiple regression (MMR). An HLM model incorporating cross-level interactions is illustrated with data from a study of test validity across organizational units. An HLM model for person-organization congruence is then described. As compared to MMR, HLM can more readily handle large numbers of organizations. By increasing the number of organizations that can be studied, HLM should increase the power of the designs that researchers can use.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aguinis, H. (1995). Statistical power problems with moderated multiple regression in management research. Journal of Management, 21, 1141-1158.
2.
Aguinis, H., Pierce, C. A., & Stone-Romero, E. F. (1994). Estimating the power to detect dichotomous moderators with moderated multiple regression. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 690-692.
3.
Aguinis, H., & Stone-Romero, E. G. (1997). Methodological artifacts in moderated multiple regression and their effects on statistical power. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 192-206.
4.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
5.
Bryk, A. S., Lee, V. E., & Smith, M. B. (1990). High school organization and its effects on teachers and students: An interpretative summary of the research. In W. H. Clune & J. F. Witte (Eds), Choice and control in American education: Vol. 1. The theory of choice and control in education (pp. 135-226). New York: Falmer Press.
6.
Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
7.
Cronbach, L. J., & Gleser, G. (1965). Psychological tests and personnel decisions (2nd ed.). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
8.
Davison, M. L. (1976). Fitting and testing Carroll’s weighted unfolding model for preferences, Psychometrika, 41, 233-248.
9.
Davison, M. L., & Jones, L. E. (1976). A similarity-attraction model for predicting sociometric choice from perceived group structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 601-612.
10.
de Leeuw, J., & Kreft, I. G. G. (1995). Questioning multilevel models. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 20(2), 171-189.
11.
Edwards, J. (1995). Alternatives to difference scores as dependent variables in the study of congruence in organizational research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 64, 307-324.
12.
Erez, A., Bloom, M., & Wells, M. (1996). Using random rather than fixed effects models in meta-analysis: Implications for situational specificity and validity generalization. Personnel Psychology, 49, 275-306.
13.
Ghiselli, E. E., Campbell, J. P., & Zedeck, S. (1981). Measurement theory for the behavioral sciences. San Francisco: Freeman.
14.
Griffin, M. A. (1997). Interaction between individuals and situations: Using HLM procedures to estimate reciprocal relationships. Journal of Management, 23(6), 759-773.
15.
Haberfeld, Y., Semyonov, M., & Addi, A. (1998). A hierarchical linear model for estimating gender-based earnings differentials. Work and Occupations, 25(1), 97-112.
16.
Hofmann, D. A. (1997). An overview of the logic and rationale of hierarchical linear models. Journal of Management, 23(6), 723-744.
17.
Hofmann, D. A., & Gavin, M. B. (1998). Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: Implications for research in organizations. Journal of Management, 24(5), 623-641.
18.
James, L. R., Joyce, W. F., & Slocum, J. W. (1988). Organizations do not cognize. Academy of Management Review, 13(1), 129-132.
19.
Kidwell, R. E., Mossholder, K. W., & Bennett, N. (1997). Cohesiveness and organizational citizenship behavior: A multilevel analysis using work groups and individuals. Journal of Management, 23(6), 775-793.
20.
Kreft, I. G. G. (2000). Using random coefficient linear models for the analysis of hierarchically nested data. In H. E. A. Tinsey & S. D. Brown (Eds.), Handbook of Applied Multivariate Statistics and Mathematical Models (pp. 613-639). New York: Academic Press.
21.
Kreft, I. G. G., & de Leeuw, J. (1994). The gender gap in earnings: A two-way nested multiple regression analysis with random effects. Sociological Methods and Research, 22(3), 319-341.
22.
Kreft, I. G. G., de Leeuw, J., & Aiken, L. S. (1995). The effect of different forms of centering in hierarchical linear models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 30(1), 1-21.
23.
Lee, V. E., & Smith, J. B. (1997). High school size: Which works best and for whom? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19, 205-227.
24.
Maxwell, S. E., & Delaney, H. D. (1990). Designing experiments and analyzing data. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
25.
Ostroff, C., & Harrison, D. A. (1999). Meta-analysis: Level of analysis and best estimates of population correlations: Cautions for interpreting meta-analytic results in organizational behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 260-270.
26.
Pervin, L. A. (1989). Persons, situations, interactions: The history of a controversy and a discussion of theoretical models. Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 350-360.
27.
Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., Cheong, Y. F., & Congdon, R. T., Jr. (2000). HLM5: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
28.
SAS Institute (1996). SAS/STAT Software: Changes and enhancements through release 6.11. Cary, NC: Author.
29.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1977). Development of a general solution to the problem of validity generalization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 529-540.
30.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1984). A within-setting empirical test of the situational specificity hypothesis in personnel selection. Personnel Psychology, 37, 317-326.
31.
Singer, J. D. (1998). Using SAS PROC MIXED to fit multilevel models, hierarchical models, and individual growth models. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 24, 323-355.
32.
Vancouver, J. B., Millsap, R. E., & Peters, P. A. (1994). Multilevel analysis of organizational goal congruence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 666-679.
33.
Vancouver, J. B., & Schmitt, N. W. (1991). An exploratory examination of person-organization fit: Organizational goal congruence. Personnel Psychology, 44, 333-352.
