Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-shngb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-07T21:42:05.872Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Proper Sequence for Correcting Correlation Coefficients for Range Restriction and Unreliability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Joseph M. Stauffer  and
Jorge L. Mendoza
Joseph M. Stauffer*
Affiliation:
Center for Women in Small Business, Saint Mary-of-the-Woods College
Jorge L. Mendoza
Affiliation:
University of Oklahoma
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to Joseph M. Stauffer, c/o Division Management, University of Oklahoma, 307 W. Brooks, Adams Hall, Room 206, Norman OK 73019. E-Mail: joestauffer@hotmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Corrections of correlations for range restriction (i.e., selection) and unreliability are common in psychometric work. The current rule of thumb for determining the order in which to apply these corrections looks to the nature of the reliability estimate (i.e., restricted or unrestricted). While intuitive, this rule of thumb is untenable when the correction includes the variable upon which selection is made, as is generally the case. Using classical test theory, we show that it is the nature of the range restriction, not the nature of the available reliability coefficient, that determines the sequence for applying corrections for range restriction and unreliability.

Keywords

correlationrange restrictionreliabilityselection

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 66 , Issue 1 , March 2001 , pp. 63 - 68
Copyright
Copyright © 2001 The Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

We would like to thank Malcolm James Ree for his encouragement and helpful comments as well as those of the editors, associate editor, and reviewers.

References

Bobko, P. (1983). An analysis of correlations corrected for attenuation and range restriction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 584–589.10.1037/0021-9010.68.4.584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callender, J.C., Osburn, H.G. (1980). Development and test of a new model for validity generalization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 543–558.10.1037/0021-9010.65.5.543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, J.E., Schmidt, F.L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Hunter, J.E., Schmidt, F.L. (1994). Correcting for sources of artificial variation across studies. In Cooper, H., Hedges, L.V. (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (xxx–xxx). New York: Sage.Google Scholar
Lee, R., Miller, K.J., Graham, W.K. (1982). Corrections for restriction of range and attenuation in criterion-related validation studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 637–639.10.1037/0021-9010.67.5.637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, F.M., Novick, M.R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Mendoza, J.L., Mumford, M. (1987). Corrections for attenuation and range restriction on the predictor. Journal of Educational Statistics, 12, 282–293.10.3102/10769986012003282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, K. (1903). Mathematical contributions to the theory of evolution. XI. On the influence of natural selection on the variability and correlation of organs. Royal Society Philosophical Transactions, Series A, 200, 1–66.Google Scholar
Raju, N.S., Burke, M.J. (1983). Two new procedures for studying validity generalization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 382–395.10.1037/0021-9010.68.3.382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raju, N.S., Burke, M.J., Normand, J., Langlois, G.M. (1991). A new meta-analytic approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 432–446.10.1037/0021-9010.76.3.432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spearman, C. (1904). The proof and measurement of association between two things. American Journal of Psychology, 15, 72–101.10.2307/1412159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorndike, R. L. (1949). Personnel selection: Test and measurement techniques. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar