This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Raju, N. S. Articles by Fleer, P. F. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Accuracy of Population Validity and Cross-Validity Estimation: An Empirical Comparison of Formula-Based, Traditional Empirical, and Equal Weights Procedures

Illinois Institute of Technology

Reyhan Bilgic

Middle East Technical University

Jack E. Edwards

Defense Manpower Data Center

Paul F. Fleer

Illinois Institute of Technology

An empirical monte carlo study was performed using predictor and criterion data from 84,808 U.S. Air Force enlistees. 501 samples were drawn for each of seven sample size conditions: 25, 40, 60, 80, 100, 150, and 200. Using an eight-predictor model, 500 estimates for each of 9 validity and 11 cross-validity estimation procedures were generated for each sample size condition. These estimates were then compared to the actual squared population validity and cross-validity in terms of mean bias and mean squared bias. For the regression models determined using ordinary least squares, the Ezekiel procedure produced the most accurate estimates of squared population validity (followed by the Smith and the Wherry procedures), and Burket’s formula resulted in the best estimates of squared population cross-validity. Other analyses compared the coefficients determined by traditional empirical cross-validation and equal weights; equal weights resulted in no loss of predictive accuracy and less shrinkage. Numerous issues for future basic research on validation and cross-validation are identified.

Applied Psychological Measurement, Vol. 23, No. 2, 99-115 (1999)
DOI: 10.1177/01466219922031220


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				G. Shieh Improved Shrinkage Estimation of Squared Multiple Correlation Coefficient and Squared Cross-Validity Coefficient Organizational Research Methods, April 1, 2008; 11(2): 387 - 407. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. Algina and H.J. Keselman Population Validity and Cross-Validity: Applications of Distribution Theory for Testing Hypotheses, Setting Confidence Intervals, and Determining Sample Size Educational and Psychological Measurement, April 1, 2008; 68(2): 233 - 244. [Abstract] [PDF]

				P. Bobko, P. L. Roth, and M. A. Buster The Usefulness of Unit Weights in Creating Composite Scores: A Literature Review, Application to Content Validity, and Meta-Analysis Organizational Research Methods, October 1, 2007; 10(4): 689 - 709. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. Gully Book Review Organizational Research Methods, April 1, 2003; 6(2): 268 - 272. [PDF]

				E. F. Alf Jr. and R. G. Graf A New Maximum Likelihood Estimator for the Population Squared Multiple Correlation Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, January 1, 2002; 27(3): 223 - 235. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. Algina and H. J. Keselman Cross-Validation Sample Sizes Applied Psychological Measurement, June 1, 2000; 24(2): 173 - 179. [Abstract] [PDF]