|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
Large Sample Estimators for Standard Errors of Functions of Correlation Coefficients
Philip Bobko
University of Maryland
Angela Rieck
University of Maryland
Standard errors of estimators that are functions of correlation coefficients are shown to be quite dif ferent in magnitude than standard errors of the ini tial correlations. A general large-sample methodo logy, based upon Taylor series expansions and asymptotic correlational results, is developed for the computation of such standard errors. Three ex emplary analyses are conducted on a correction for attenuation, a correction for range restriction, and an indirect effect in path analysis. Derived for mulae are consistent with several previously pro posed estimators and provide excellent approxima tions to the standard errors obtained in computer simulations, even for moderate sample size (n = 100). It is shown that functions of correlations can be considerably more variable than product-mo ment correlations. Additionally, appropriate hy pothesis tests are derived for these corrected coeffi cients and the indirect effect. It is shown that in the range restriction situation, the appropriate hypothe sis test based on the corrected coefficient is asymp totically more powerful than the test utilizing the uncorrected coefficient. Bias is also discussed as a by-product of the methodology.
Applied Psychological Measurement, Vol. 4, No. 3,
385-398 (1980)
DOI: 10.1177/014662168000400309

CiteULike Complore Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:

|
 |

|
 |
 
H. Aguinis, C. A. Pierce, and S. A. Culpepper
Scale Coarseness as a Methodological Artifact: Correcting Correlation Coefficients Attenuated From Using Coarse Scales
Organizational Research Methods,
October 1, 2009;
12(4):
623 - 652.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
M. W.-L. Cheung
Comparison of methods for constructing confidence intervals of standardized indirect effects
Behav Res Methods,
May 1, 2009;
41(2):
425 - 438.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
N. S. Raju and P. A. Brand
Determining the Significance of Correlations Corrected for Unreliability and Range Restriction
Applied Psychological Measurement,
January 1, 2003;
27(1):
52 - 71.
[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]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
A. G. Bedeian, D. V. Day, and E. K. Kelloway
Correcting for Measurement Error Attenuation in Structural Equation Models: Some Important Reminders
Educational and Psychological Measurement,
October 1, 1997;
57(5):
785 - 799.
[Abstract]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
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]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
N. L. Allen and S. B. Dunbar
Standard Errors of Correlations Adjusted for Incidental Selection
Applied Psychological Measurement,
March 1, 1990;
14(1):
83 - 94.
[Abstract]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
J. L. Rasmussen
Evaluation of Small-Sample Statistics That Test Whether Variables Measure the Same Trait
Applied Psychological Measurement,
June 1, 1988;
12(2):
177 - 187.
[Abstract]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
S. J. Zaccaro and T. T. Collins
Excused and Unexcused Absenteeism in Normative Organizations: Effects of Organizational Commitment, Rank, and Interaction Process
Group Organization Management,
March 1, 1988;
13(1):
81 - 99.
[Abstract]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
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, P. J. Hanges, and G. M. Alliger
An Empirical Examination of Two Transformations of Sample Correlations
Educational and Psychological Measurement,
December 1, 1985;
45(4):
797 - 801.
[Abstract]
|
 |
|
|
|