Pearson product moment correlations are often corrected for statistical artifacts such as range restriction and unreliability. Formulas have long existed to make such corrections. However, other effect size estimates are rarely corrected for these artifacts, in spite of the fact that there is an established mathematical link between the correlation and some effect size estimates. Correlations and other effect sizes are therefore vulnerable to the same artifacts. The authors take a common effect size estimate, the standardized mean difference between two groups, and derive (and reaffirm in one instance) correction formulas suitable for use with this statistic. It is demonstrated how these formulas might substantially increase the precision of estimates and decisions made within organizational research and practice, whenever correction factors can be appropriately estimated.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bobko, P. (1995). Correlation and regression: Principles and applications for industrial/organizational psychology and management. New York: McGraw-Hill.
2.
Bobko, P., & Rieck, A. (1980). Large sample estimators for standard errors of functions of correlation coefficients. Applied Psychological Measurement, 4, 385-398.
3.
Bobko, P., Roth, P., & Potosky, D. (1999). Derivation and implications of a meta-analytic matrix incorporating cognitive ability, alternative predictors, and job performance. Personnel Psychology, 52, 561-589.
4.
Boldt, R. (1973). Range restriction assumptions assuming quadratic conditional variances (Research Bulletin 73-59). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
5.
Brewer, J., & Hills, J. (1969). Univariate selection: The effects of size of correlation, degree of skew, and degree of range restriction. Psychometrika, 34, 347-361.
6.
Brockhaus, R. (1980). Risk taking propensity of entrepreneurs. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 509-520.
7.
Burke, M., & Day, R. (1986). A cumulative study of the effectiveness of managerial training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 232-245.
8.
Caretta, T. (1997). Group differences on US Air Force pilot selection tests. Sex and Ethnic Group Differences, 5, 115-126.
9.
Carland, J., Hoy, F., Boulton, W., & Carland, J. (1984). Differentiating small business owners from entrepreneurs. Academy of Management Review, 9, 354-359.
10.
Carlson, L., & Grossbart, S. (1988). Parental style and consumer socialization of children. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 77-94.
11.
Galton, F. (1892). Hereditary genius. London: Macmillan.
12.
Ghiselli, E. (1964). Theory of psychological measurement. New York: McGraw-Hill.
13.
Greener, J., & Osburn, H. (1979). An empirical study of the accuracy of corrections for restriction in range due to explicit selection. Applied Psychological Measurement, 3, 31-41.
14.
Greener, J., & Osburn, H. (1980). Accuracy of corrections for restriction in range due to explicit selection in heteroscedastistic and non-linear distributions. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 40, 337-345.
15.
Guzzo, R., Jette, R., & Katzell, R. (1985). The effects of psychologically based intervention programs on worker productivity: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 38, 275-291.
16.
Hedges, L. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass’s estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6, 107-128.
17.
Hedges, L., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
18.
Herrnstein, R., & Murray, C. (1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life. New York: Free Press.
19.
Huffcutt, A., & Roth, P. (1998). Racial group differences in employment interview evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 179-189.
20.
Hunter, J., & Schmidt, F. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
21.
Hunter, J. E., & Hunter, R. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72-98.
22.
Linn, R., Harnisch, D., & Dunbar, S. (1981). Corrections for range restriction: An empirical investigation of conditions resulting in conservative corrections. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 655-663.
23.
Morrow, C., Jarrett, M., & Rupinski, M. (1997). An investigation of the effect and economic utility of corporate wide training. Personnel Psychology, 50, 91-119.
24.
Pritchard, R., Jones, S., Roth, P., Stuebing, K., & Ekeberg, S. (1988). Effects of group feedback, goal setting, and incentives on organizational productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 337-358.
25.
Reilly, R., & Warech, M. (1994). The validity and fairness of alternatives to cognitive tests. In L. Wing & B. Gifford (Eds.), Policy issues in employment testing (pp. 131-224). Boston: Kluwer.
26.
Roth, P. (1994). Missing data: A conceptual review for applied psychologists. Personnel Psychology, 47, 537-559.
27.
Roth, P., BeVier, C., Bobko, P., Switzer, F., & Tyler, P. (2000, August). Ethnic group differences in cognitive ability in employment and educational settings: A meta-analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Toronto.
28.
Russell, J., Wexley, K., & Hunter, J. (1984). Questioning the effectiveness of behavior modeling training in an industrial setting. Personnel Psychology, 37, 465-481.
29.
Sackett, P., & Ellingson, J. (1997). The effects of forming multi-predictor composites on group differences and adverse impact. Personnel Psychology, 50, 707-721.
30.
Sackett, P., & Ostgaard, D. (1994). Job specific applicant pools and national norms for cognitive ability tests: Implications for range restriction corrections in validation research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 680-685.
31.
Sackett, P., & Wilk, S. (1994). Within group norming and other forms of score adjustment in preemployment testing. American Psychologist, 49, 929-954.
32.
Schmidt, F., Hunter, J., and Urry, V. (1976). Statistical power in criterion-related validation studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 473-485.
33.
Schmitt, N., Clause, C., & Pulakos, E. (1996). Subgroup differences associated with different measures of some common job-relevant constructs. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 115-139). New York: John Wiley.
34.
Schmitt, N., Rogers, W., Chan, D., Sheppard, L., & Jennings, D. (1997). Adverse impact and predictive efficiency of various predictor combinations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 5, 719-730.
35.
Stewart, W., Watson, W., Carland, J., & Carland, J. (1999). A proclivity for entrepreneurship: A comparison of entrepreneurs, small business owners, and corporate managers. Journal of Business Venturing, 14, 189-214.
36.
Walsh, A., Laczniak, R., & Carlson, L. (1998). Mother’s preferences for regulating children’s behavior. Journal of Advertising, 27, 23-36.
