The variable-centered approach is favored in management and applied psychology, but the personcentered approach is quickly growing in popularity. A partial cause for this rise is the finer-grained detail that it allows. Many researchers may be unaware, however, that another approach may provide even finer-grained detail: the person-specific approach. In the current article, we (a) detail the purpose of each approach, (b) describe how to determine when each approach is most appropriate, and (c) delineate when the approaches diverge to give differing results. Through achieving these goals, we suggest that no single approach is the "best." Instead, the choice of approach should be guided by the research question. To further emphasize this point, we provide illustrative examples using real data to answer three distinct research questions. The results show that each research question can be fully addressed only by the appropriate approach. To conclude, we directly suggest certain research areas that may benefit from the application of person-centered and person-specific approaches. Together, we believe that discussing variable-centered, person-centered, and person-specific approaches together may provide a more thorough understanding of each.

This article provides a review of the approach that James used when conducting item analyses on his conditional reasoning test items. That approach was anchored in classical test theory. Our article extends this work in two important ways. First, we offer a set of test development protocols that are tailored to the unique nature of conditional reasoning tests. Second, we further extend James’s approach by integrating his early test validation protocols (based on classical test theory) with more recent protocols (based on item response theory). We then apply our integrated item analytic framework to data collected on James’s first test, the conditional reasoning test for relative motive strength. We illustrate how this integrated approach furnishes additional diagnostic information that may allow researchers to make more informed and targeted revisions to an initial set of items.

Previous research on union participation has been disjointed, with no clear consensus on the definition and nature of participation.Additionally, few studies have examined how participation changes over time, with those that have finding mixed results regarding its stability. We propose that these mixed and inconsistent findings are due largely to past research focusing on overall levels of participation, ignoring differences in how individuals participate. To remedy this, we adopted a person-centered approach to identify different types of union participators. Using a large sample of union members, we conducted latent transition analysis and found six union participator classes: high participators, leadership participators, formal union promoters, informal union promoters, silent supporters, and non-participators. In addition, we examined how individuals changed membership across two time points (separated by 6 years), antecedents of class membership (role tenure and union commitment), and outcomes (freerider intentions and actual financial contributions to the union's political action fund). The six classes differed uniquely, in terms of the ways people participate, changes in how people participate over time, what predicted class membership, and how class membership impacts two outcomes. The current study demonstrates that person-centered approaches can both clarify previous conflicting findings within the participation literature and predict meaningful outcomes. K E Y W O R D S latent transition analysis, person-centered analysis, unions, union commitment, union participation Personnel Psychology. 2020;73:271-304.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/peps