This article examines the statistical correction for attenuation and the controversies surrounding the procedure. Although originally developed for test construction purposes, the correction for attenuation is also used in meta-analysis and assessments of validity generalization. Since Spearman's classic article in 1904, correct use and interpretation of the correction for attenuation has been debated. The logic of the double and single correction formulae is discussed as well as the correction producing validity coefficients greater than 1.00. Three types of misapplications and misinterpretations of the correction in published literature are presented. The article concludes with arguments pertaining to the use of the correction formula, and it attempts to sharpen the focus of issues that have led to differences of opinion about its meaning and purpose.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AERA/APA/NCME. (1974). Standards for educational and psychological tests. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
2.
AERA/APA/NCME. (1985). Standards for educational and psychological tests. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
3.
Bateman, T. S. , & Strasser, S. A. (1984). A longitudinal analysis of organizational commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 95-112.
4.
Bobko, P. (1983). An analysis of correlations corrected for attenuation and range restriction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 584-589.
5.
Cronbach, L. J. (1947). Test "reliability": Its meaning and determination. Psychometrika,-12, 1-16.
6.
Cureton, E. E. (1958). The definition and estimation of test reliability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 18, 715-738.
7.
Fried, Y , & Ferris, G. R. (1987). The validity of the job characteristics model: A review and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40, 287-322.
8.
Garside, R. J. (1958). The measurement of function fluctuation. Psychometrika, 23, 75-83.
9.
Guilford, J. P. (1954). Psychometric methods (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
10.
Hackman, J. R. , & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 159-170.
11.
Hakstian, A. R. , Schroeder, M. L., & Rogers, W. T. (1988). Inferential procedures for correlation coefficients corrected for attenuation. Psychometrika, 53, 27-43.
12.
Hunter, J. E. , & Schmidt, F. L. (1991). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
13.
Iaffaldano, M. T. , & Muchinsky, P. M. (1985). Job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 251-273.
14.
Johnson, H. G. (1944). An empirical study of the influence of errors of measurement upon correlation. American Journal of Psychology, 57, 521-536.
15.
Johnson, H. G. (1950). Test reliability and correction for attenuation. Psychometrika, 15, 115-119.
16.
Judiesch, M. K. , Schmidt, F L., & Hunter, J. E. (1993). Has the problem of judgment in utility analysis been solved? Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 903-911.
17.
Lee, R. , Miller, K., & Graham, W. (1982). Corrections for restriction of range and attenuation in criterion-related validation studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 637-639.
18.
Linn, R. L. (1986). Comment on the g factor in employment testing. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 29, 438-444.
19.
Lord, F , & Novick, M. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
20.
Mabe, P. A. , & West, S. G. (1982). Validity of self-evaluation of ability: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 280-296.
21.
Magnusson, D. (1967). Test theory. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
22.
Mendoza, J. L. , & Mumford, M. (1987). Corrections for attenuation and range restriction on the predictor. Journal of Educational Statistics, 12, 282-293.
23.
Motowidlo, S. J. (1982). Relationship between self-rated performance and pay satisfaction among sales representatives. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 67, 209-213.
24.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
25.
Oumlil, A. B. , & Balloun, J. L. (1986). Improving the accuracy of measurement in attitudinal and demographic models: The application of the correction for attenuation method. Journal of Business Research, 14, 355-369.
26.
Raju, N. S. , Burke, M. J., & Normand, J. (1990). A new approach to utility analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 3-12.
27.
Raju, N. S. , Burke, M. J., Normand, J., & Lezotte, D. V. (1993). What would be if what is wasn't? A rejoinder to Judiesch, Schmidt, and Hunter (1993). Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 912-916.
28.
Rosenthal, R. (1984). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
29.
Sackett, P. R. , Schmitt, N. W., Tenopyr, M. L., Kehoe, J. F., & Zedeck, S. (1985). Commentary on forty questions about validity generalization and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 38, 697-798.
30.
Schmidt, F L. , Hunter, J. E., McKenzie, R. C., & Muldrow, T. W. (1979). Impact of valid selection procedures and work-force productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 609-626.
31.
Schmidt, F. L. , Hunter, J. E., Pearlman, K., & Hirsch, H. R. (1985). Forty questions about validity generalization and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 38, 697-798.
32.
Schmidt, F L. , Hunter, J. E., & Urry, V. W. (1976). Statistical power in criterion-related validation studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 473-485.
33.
Seymour, R. T. (1988). Why plaintiffs' counsel challenge tests, and how they can successfully challenge the theory of "validity generalization."Journal of Vocational Behavior, 33, 331-364.
34.
Smith, M. , Farr, J. L., & Schuler, H. (1993). Individual and organizational perspectives on personnel procedures: Conclusions and horizons for future research. In H. Schuler, J. L. Farr, & M. Smith (Eds.), Personnel selection and assessment. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
35.
Spearman, C. (1904). The proof and measurement of association between two things. American Journal of Psychology, 15, 72-101.
36.
Spearman, C. (1910). Correlation calculated from faulty data. British Journal of Psychology, 3, 271-295.
37.
Terborg, J. R. , Lee, T. W., Smith, F J., Davis, G. A., & Turbin, M. S. (1982). Extension of the Schmidt and Hunter validity generalization procedure to the prediction of absenteeism behavior from knowledge of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 440-449.
38.
Wanous, J. P. (1974). A causal-correlation analysis of the job satisfaction and performance relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 139-144.
39.
Wiesner, W. H. , & Cronshaw, S. F (1988). A meta-analytic investigation of the impact of interview format and degree of structure on the validity of the employment interview. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 61, 275-290.
40.
Wigdor, A. K. , & Sackett, P. R. (1993). Employment testing and public policy: The case of the General Aptitude Test Battery. In H. Schuler, J. L. Farr, & M. Smith (Eds.), Personnel selection and assessment. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
