Recently developed procedures correct range restricted correlations with information obtained solely from the restricted samples. However, these procedures can be used only when the type of range restriction that has occurred is known. A sample-based classification procedure was developed in an attempt to address this limitation. This new procedure was found to be relatively accurate and powerful in determining the appropriate range restriction correction.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alexander, R. A. , Alliger, G. M., and Hanges, P. J. (1984). Correcting for range restriction when the population variance is unknown. Applied Psychological Measurement, 8, 431-437.
2.
Alexander, R. A. , Carson, K. P., Alliger, G. M., and Barrett, G. V. (1984). Correction for restriction of range when both X and Y are truncated. Applied Psychological Measurement, 8, 231-241.
3.
Alexander, R. A. , Carson, K. P., Alliger, G. M., and Barrett, G. V. (1985). Further consideration of the power to detect nonzero validity coefficients under range restriction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 451-460.
4.
Alexander, R. A. , Hanges, P. J., and Alliger, G. M. (1985). Correcting for restriction of range in both X and Y when the unrestricted variances are unknown. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 317-323.
5.
Alexander, R. A. , Hanges, P. J., and Herbert, G. R. (1987). Correcting for indirect restriction of range when the population variance is unknown. Manuscript submitted for publication.
6.
Alexander, R. A. , Hanges, P. J., and Herbert, G. R. (in press). Effects of violating the strict truncation assumption on sample-based range restriction correlations. Applied Psychological Measurement.
7.
American Psychological Association (1985). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, D.C.: Author.
8.
Cohen, A. C. (1959). Simplified estimators for the normal distribution when samples are singly censored or truncated. Technometrics, 1, 217-237.
9.
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37-46.
10.
Huberty, C. J. (1984). Issues in the use and interpretation of discriminant analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 156-171.
11.
IMSL Library. (1979). Houston, TX: International Mathematical and Statistical Libraries.
12.
Kelley, T. L. (1923). Statistical method. New York: MacMillon.
13.
Kirk, R. E. (1982). Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences (Second Ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.
14.
Klecka, W. R. (1980). Discriminant Analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
15.
Linn, R. L. , Harnisch, D. L., and Dunbar, S. B. (1981). Correlations for range restriction: An empirical investigation of conditions resulting in conservative corrections. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 655-663.
16.
Otis, A. A. (1922). A method of inferring the change in a coefficient of correlation resulting from a change in the heterogeneity of the group. Journal of Educational Psychology, 13, 293-294.
17.
Pearson, K. (1903). Mathematical contributions to the theory of evolution-XI: On the influence of natural selection on the variability and correlation of organs. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London, Ser. A, 200, 1-66.
18.
Robson, D. S. and Whitlock, J. H. (1964). Estimation of a truncation point. Biometrika, 51, 33-39.
19.
Rydberg, S. (1963). Bias in prediction. Stockholm: Almquist and Wicksell.
20.
Sackett, P. R. and Wade, B. E. (1983). On the feasibility of criterion-related validity: The effects of range restriction assumptions on needed sample size. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 374-381.
21.
Schmidt, F. L. , Hunter, J. E., and Urry, V. W. (1976). Statistical power in criterion-related validity studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 473-485.
22.
Standards for educational and psychological testing (3rd ed.). (1985). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
