Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Correction of correlations diminished by range re striction is a commonly suggested psychometric tech nique. Such corrections may be appropriate in applied settings, such as educational or personnel selection, or in more theoretical applications, such as meta-analy sis. However, an important limitation on the practice of range restriction corrections exists—an estimate of the unrestricted population variance is required. This article outlines and examines the accuracy of a method for estimating the unrestricted variance of a variable from the restricted sample itself. This method is based on the observation that it is possible to table a func tion of the truncated normal distribution that will al low the extent or point of truncation to be estimated (Cohen, 1959). The correlation of the truncated varia ble with other variables may then be corrected by standard restriction of range formulas. The method also allows for correction of the mean of the restricted variable.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alexander, R.A. , Barrett, G.V. , Alliger, G.M. , & Carson, K.P. (1984). Toward a general model of nonrandom sampling and the impact on population correlation: Generalizations of Berkson's fallacy and restriction of range. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Alexander, R.A. , Carson, K.P. , Alliger, G.M. , & Barrett, G.V. (1984). Correction for restriction of range when both X and Y are truncated. Applied Psychological Measurement, 8, 231-241.

American Psychological Association, Division of Industrial-Organizational Psychology. (1980). Principles for the validation and use of personnel selection procedures: Second edition. Dayton OH: Author.

Brewer, J.K. , & Hills, J.R. (1969). Univariate selection: The effects of size of correlation, degree of skew, and degree of restriction. Psychometrika, 26, 347-372.

Cohen, A.C. (1959). Simplified estimators for the normal distribution when samples are singly censored or truncated. Technometrics , 1, 217-237.

Greener, J.M. , & Osburn, H.G. (1979). An empirical study of the accuracy of corrections for restriction in range due to explicit selection. Applied Psychological Measurement, 3, 31-41.

Gross, A.L. (1982). Relaxing assumptions underlying corrections for restriction of range. Educational and Psychological Measurement , 42, 795-801.

Gross, A.L. , & Fleischman, L. (1983). Restriction of range corrections when both distribution and selection assumptions are violated. Applied Psychological Measurement, 7, 227-237.

IMSL Library. (1979). Houston TX: International Mathematical and Statistical Libraries.

10.

Lee, R. , Miller, K.J. , & Graham, W.Y. (1982). Corrections for restriction of range and attenuation in criterion-related studies. Journal of Applied Psychology , 67, 637-639.

11.

Linn, R.L. (1968). Range restriction problems in the use of self-selected groups for test validation. Psychological Bulletin, 69, 69-73.

12.

Linn, R.L. (1983). Pearson selection formulas: Implications for studies of predictive bias and estimates of educational effects in selected samples . Journal of Educational Measurement, 20, 1-15.

13.

Thorndike, R.L. (1947). Research problems and techniques (Report No. 3) . Washington DC: AAF Aviation Psychology Program Research Reports, U.S. Government Printing Office.

14.

Thorndike, R.L. (1949). Personnel selection: Test and measurement techniques . New York: Wiley.

Correcting for Range Restriction When the Population Variance is Unknown

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References