A Monte Carlo study was conducted to compare the accuracy of different estimates of the standard error of correlations corrected for restriction in range. It was found that the procedure suggested by P. Bobko and A. Rieck, also derived by N. S. Raju and colleagues, generated the most accurate estimates of the standard error compared to other existing procedures. The study also repeated previous findings that Pearson correlations corrected for restriction in range resulted in more accurate estimates of the population rho than did the restricted correlations, but the accuracy of the approximation of population rho decreased as the selection criterion became higher. Another finding of the study was that the standard error of correlations under range restriction tended to increase as the selection ratios decreased.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alexander, R. A. , Hanges, P. J., & Alliger, G. M. (1985). Correcting for restriction of range in both X and Y when the unrestricted variances are unknown. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 317-323.
2.
Allen, N. , & Dunbar, S. B. (1990). Standard error of correlations adjusted for incidental selection. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14, 83-94.
3.
American Psychological Association. (1974). Standards for educational and psychological tests. Washington, DC: Author.
4.
Bobko, P. (1983). An analysis of correlations corrected for attenuation and range restriction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 584-589.
5.
Bobko, P. , & Rieck, A. (1980). Large sample estimators for standard errors of functions of correlation coefficients. Applied Psychological Measurement, 4, 385-398.
6.
Fisher, R. A. (1915). Frequency-distribution of the values of the correlation coefficient in samples from an indefinitely large population. Biometrika, 10, 507.
7.
Fisher, R. A. (1954). Statistical methods for research workers. Edinburgh, Scotland: Oliver & Boyd.
8.
Forsyth, R. A. (1971). An empirical note on correlation coefficients corrected for restriction in range. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 31, 115-123.
9.
Greener, J. M. , & Osburn, H. G. (1979). An empirical study of the accuracy of corrections for restriction in range due to explicit selection. Applied Psychological Measurement, 3, 31-41.
10.
Gross, A. L. (1982). Relaxing the assumptions underlying corrections for restriction of range. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 42, 795-801.
11.
Gross, A. L. , & Fleischman, L. (1983). Restriction of range correction when both distribution and selection assumptions are violated. Applied Psychological Measurement, 7, 227-237.
12.
Gullickson, A. , & Hopkins, K. (1976). Interval estimation of correlation coefficients corrected for restriction of range. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 36, 9-25.
13.
Holmes, D. J. (1990). The robustness of the usual correction for restriction in range due to explicit selection. Psychometrika, 55, 19-32.
14.
Huitema, B. E. , & Stein, C. R. (1993). Validity of the GRE without restriction of range. Psychological Reports, 72, 123-127.
15.
Kelley, T. L (1923). Statistical methods. New York: Macmillan.
16.
Knapp, T. R. , & Swoyer, V. H. (1967). Some empirical results concerning the power of Bartlett's test of the significance of a correlation matrix. American Educational Research Journal, 4, 13-17.
17.
Lawley, D. A. (1943). Anote on Karl Pearson's selection formulae. Royal Society of Edinburgh Proceedings A, 62, 28-30.
18.
Linn, R. L. , Harnisch, D. L., & Dunbar, S. B. (1981). Corrections for range restrictions: An empirical investigation of conditions resulting in conservative corrections. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 655-663.
19.
Mendoza, J. L. , Hart, D. E., & Powell, A. (1991). A bootstrap confidence interval based on a correlation corrected for range restriction. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 26, 255-269.
20.
Millsap, R. (1989). Sampling variance in the correlation coefficient under range restriction: A Monte Carlo study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 456-461.
21.
Pearson, K. (1903). Mathematical contributions to the theory of evolution: XI. On the influence of natural selection on the variability and correlation of organs. Transactions of the Royal Society, London, 200, 1-66.
22.
Raju, N. S. , Burke, M. J., Normand, J., & Langlois, G. M. (1991). Anew meta-analytic approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 432-446.
23.
Ree, M. J. , Carretta, T. R., Earles, J. A., & Albert, W. (1994). Sign changes when correlating for range restriction: A note on Pearson's and Lawley's selection formulas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 298-301.
24.
Schmidt, F. L. , Hunter, J. E., & Urry, V. W. (1976). Statistical power in criterion-related validity studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 473-485.
25.
Thormdike, R. L. (1949). Personnel selection. New York: John Wiley.
