Standard Errors of Correlations Adjusted for Incidental Selection

Abstract

The standard error of correlations that have been adjusted for selection with commonly used formulas developed by Pearson (1903) was investigated. The major purposes of the study were (1) to provide large- sample approximations of the standard error of a cor relation adjusted using the Pearson-Lawley three-varia ble correction formula; (2) to examine the standard er rors of adjusted correlations under specific conditions; and (3) to compare various estimates of the standard errors under direct and indirect selection. Two theory- based large-sample estimates of the standard error of a correlation adjusted for indirect selection were devel oped using the delta method. These two estimates were compared to one another, to a bootstrap esti mate, and to an empirical standard deviation of a se ries of adjusted correlations generated in a simulation study. The simulation study manipulated factors de fined by sample size, selection ratio, underlying popu lation distribution, and population correlations in situ ations that satisfied the basic assumptions of the Pearson-Lawley procedures. The results indicated that the large-sample and bootstrap estimates were very similar when the sample size was 500 and, in most cases, the simpler of the two large-sample approxima tions appears to offer a reasonable estimate of the standard error of an adjusted correlation without re sorting to complex, computer-intensive approaches. Index terms: correlation coefficients, missing data, Pearson-Lawley corrections, selection, standard er rors of correlations, validity studies.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allen, N.L. (1988). An evaluation of standard errors for correlation coefficients adjusted for explicit and incidental selection (Doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, 1987). Dissertation Abstracts International , 48, 10A.

Bobko, P. , & Rieck, A. (1980). Large sample estimators for standard errors of functions of correlation coefficients. Applied Psychological Measurement, 4, 385-398.

Brandenburg, D.C. (1973). The use of multiple matrix sampling in approximating an entire empirical norms distribution (Doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, 1972). Dissertation Abstracts International, 33, 3368A.

Brandt, D. , McLaughlin, D. , Wise, L. , & Rossmeissl, P. (1984). Complex cross-validation of the validity of a predictor battery. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto.

Cpullickson, A. , & Hopkins, K. (1976). Interval estimation of correlation coefficients corrected for restriction of range. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 36, 9-25.

Isserlis, L. (1916). On certain probable errors and correlation coefficients of multiple frequency distributions with skew regression. Biometrika, 11, 185-190.

Kelley, T.L. (1923). Statistical method. New York : Macmillan.

Lawley, D.N. (1944). A note on Karl Pearson's selection formulae. Royal Society of Edinburgh: Proceedings, Section A, 62, 28-30.

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.

10.

Little, R.J.A. , & Rubin, D.B. (1987). Statistical analysis with missing data. New York: Wiley.

11.

Lord, F.M. , & Novick, M.R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.

12.

Mendoza, J.L. , Hart, D. , & Powel, A. (1987). Empirical confidence intervals for validity coefficient under range restriction: An application of the bootstrap. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association , Washington DC.

13.

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 of London: Series A, 200, 1-66.