Why and when you should avoid using z-scores in graphs displaying profile or group differences

Many person-oriented studies use <i>z</i>-standardized scores before conducting cluster analyses and/or before displaying group differences. This article summarizes reasons why <i>z-</i> standardized scores can often be problematic and misleading in person-oriented methods. The article shows examples illustrating why and how the use of <i>z</i>-scores in group classification and comparisons can be misleading, and proposes less problematic methods. Reasons why <i>z</i>-standardized scores should be avoided when classifying or displaying differences between clusters, profiles, and other groups are: The ratio of the difference between two groups is distorted in <i>z</i>-scores.The ratio of the difference between two variables is distorted in <i>z</i>-scores.Information about item endorsement and item rejection is lost.The psychological meaning of a given <i>z</i>-score does not compare across samples and variables.Group assignments can be misleading if <i>z</i>-scores are used to assign individuals to groups.The group size and group frequency may be affected if <i>z</i>-scores instead of raw scores are used to assign individuals to groups.Group differences in further outcome variables can change if <i>z</i>-scores instead of raw scores are used to assign individuals to groups.Alternative normalization techniques perform better than <i>z</i>-standardization in cluster analyses.<i>z</i>-standardization relies on homogeneity assumptions, including unimodality, but distributions analysed in person-oriented research are often multimodal.Person-oriented methods typically examine within-person patterns to answer research questions about within-person phenomena, whereas <i>z</i>-standardization typically refers to between-person variation, which creates a logical mismatch between theory and method. Alternatives to using <i>z</i>-scores in graphs displaying profiles and group differences are using raw scores or using scale transformations that use the range, not the standard deviation in the normalization.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal for Person-Oriented Research
Published
2025-06-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.17505/jpor.2025.28091
Citations
4
Primary Topic
Mental Health Research Topics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
8.47

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Why and when you should avoid using z-scores in graphs displaying profile or group differences

Julia Moeller
4 citations
Journal for Person-Oriented Research
Mental Health Research Topics
8.47
article

Why and when you should avoid using z-scores in graphs displaying profile or group differences

Julia Moeller
article en
4 citations

Abstract

Many person-oriented studies use <i>z</i>-standardized scores before conducting cluster analyses and/or before displaying group differences. This article summarizes reasons why <i>z-</i> standardized scores can often be problematic and misleading in person-oriented methods. The article shows examples illustrating why and how the use of <i>z</i>-scores in group classification and comparisons can be misleading, and proposes less problematic methods. Reasons why <i>z</i>-standardized scores should be avoided when classifying or displaying differences between clusters, profiles, and other groups are: The ratio of the difference between two groups is distorted in <i>z</i>-scores.The ratio of the difference between two variables is distorted in <i>z</i>-scores.Information about item endorsement and item rejection is lost.The psychological meaning of a given <i>z</i>-score does not compare across samples and variables.Group assignments can be misleading if <i>z</i>-scores are used to assign individuals to groups.The group size and group frequency may be affected if <i>z</i>-scores instead of raw scores are used to assign individuals to groups.Group differences in further outcome variables can change if <i>z</i>-scores instead of raw scores are used to assign individuals to groups.Alternative normalization techniques perform better than <i>z</i>-standardization in cluster analyses.<i>z</i>-standardization relies on homogeneity assumptions, including unimodality, but distributions analysed in person-oriented research are often multimodal.Person-oriented methods typically examine within-person patterns to answer research questions about within-person phenomena, whereas <i>z</i>-standardization typically refers to between-person variation, which creates a logical mismatch between theory and method. Alternatives to using <i>z</i>-scores in graphs displaying profiles and group differences are using raw scores or using scale transformations that use the range, not the standard deviation in the normalization.

Journal for Person-Oriented ResearchVol. 11(2)
University of Erfurt (DE), University of Applied Sciences Erfurt (DE)
Jacobs Foundation
Openalex Percentile: Top 2%
Mental Health Research Topics
8.47
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.