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 Greener, J. M. Articles by Osburn, H.G. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

An Empirical Study of the Accuracy of Corrections for Restriction in Range Due to Explicit Selection

University of Houston

H.G. Osburn

University of Houston

An empirical study of the corrections for restric tion in range due to explicit selection resulted in the following conclusions. (1) The corrected sample correlation was no more accurate than the uncor rected sample correlation for low unrestricted popu lation correlations in the range .10 to .25. (2) For large unrestricted population correlations in the range .60 to .80, the corrected sample correlation was always more accurate than the uncorrected sample correlation. (3) For moderate (.30 to .55) unrestricted population correlations, the corrected sample correlation was typically more accurate than the uncorrected sample correlation. (4) The cor rection was very sensitive to moderate departures from linearity but was quite robust in the face of rather substantial departures from homoscedasti city.

Applied Psychological Measurement, Vol. 3, No. 1, 31-41 (1979)
DOI: 10.1177/014662167900300104


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

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. L. Mendoza, D. E. Bard, M. D. Mumford, and S. C. Ang Criterion-Related Validity in Multiple-Hurdle Designs: Estimation and Bias Organizational Research Methods, October 1, 2004; 7(4): 418 - 441. [Abstract] [PDF]

				P. Bobko, P. L. Roth, and C. Bobko Correcting the Effect Size of d for Range Restriction and Unreliability Organizational Research Methods, January 1, 2001; 4(1): 46 - 61. [Abstract] [PDF]

				B. Duan and W. P. Dunlap The Accuracy of Different Methods for Estimating the Standard Error of Correlations Corrected for Range Restriction Educational and Psychological Measurement, April 1, 1997; 57(2): 254 - 265. [Abstract]

				J. D. Held and P. P. Foley Explanations for Accuracy of the General Multivariate Formulas in Correcting for Range Restriction Applied Psychological Measurement, December 1, 1994; 18(4): 355 - 367. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. L. Gross and L. E. Fleischman The Correction for Restriction of Range and Nonlinear Regressions: An Analytic Study Applied Psychological Measurement, June 1, 1987; 11(2): 211 - 217. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. A. Alexander, K. P. Carson, G. M. Alliger, and L. Carr Correcting Doubly Truncated Correlations: An Improved Approximation for Correcting the Bivariate Normal Correlation when Truncation has Occurred on Both Variables Educational and Psychological Measurement, June 1, 1987; 47(2): 309 - 315. [Abstract]

				R. A. Alexander, G. M. Alliger, and P. J. Hanges Correcting for Range Restriction When the Population Variance is Unknown Applied Psychological Measurement, September 1, 1984; 8(4): 431 - 437. [Abstract]

				R. A. Alexander, K. P. Carson, G. M. Alliger, and G. V. Barrett Correction for Restriction of Range when Both X and Y are Truncated Applied Psychological Measurement, April 1, 1984; 8(2): 231 - 241. [Abstract]

				A. L. Gross and E. Kagen Not Correcting for Restriction of Range can be Advantageous Educational and Psychological Measurement, June 1, 1983; 43(2): 389 - 396. [Abstract]

				A. L. Gross and L. Fleischman Restriction of Range Corrections When Both Distribution and Selection Assumptions Are Violated Applied Psychological Measurement, April 1, 1983; 7(2): 227 - 237. [Abstract]