Developing a Procedure to Correct for Range Restriction That Involves Both Institutional Selection and Applicants’ Rejection of Job Offers

Abstract

A common research problem in validation studies is the estimation of the population correlation between predictor X and performanceY from a non–randomly selected sample. Procedures for getting unbiased estimates of population correlations in a limited set of conditions in which no rejection of job offers is assumed have been developed. However, in applied selection settings, it is very likely that some of the candidates who have received job offers reject them through a selfselection process. If an estimation model based on the assumption that there is no rejection of job offers via self-selection is used, estimates of population parameters may be biased due to model misspecification. In the current study, a procedure is developed that is applicable to a variety of realistic validation settings, including a setting in which both institutional selection and applicant’s rejection of job offers are involved. Data requirements of the procedure are also discussed.

Keywords

range restriction population correlation validation study nonignorable selection process

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aitken, A. C. (1934). Note on selection from a multivariate normal population. Proceedings of the Edinburgh Mathematical Society, 4, 106-110.

Alexander, R. A. , Barrett, G. V. , Alliger, G. M. ,& Carson, K. P. (1986). Towards a general model of non-random sampling and the impact on population correlation: Generalizations of Berkson’s fallacy and restriction of range. British Journal of Mathmatical and Statistical Psychology, 39, 90-105.

Bobko, P. (1983). An analysis of correlations corrected for attenuation and range restriction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 584-589.

Dunbar, S. B. , & Linn, R. L. (1991). Range restriction adjustments in the prediction of military Job performance. In A. K. Wigdor & B. F. Green Jr. (Eds.), Performance assessment for the workplace, II(pp. 127-157). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Greene, W. H. (1993). Econometric analysis(2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan.

Greene, W. H. (1998). LIMDEP user’s version 7.0 manual(Rev. ed.). New York: Econometric Software.

Gross, A. L. (1990). A maximum likelihood approach to test validation with missing and censored dependent variables. Psychometrika, 55, 533-549.

Gross, A. L. , & McGanney, M. L. (1987). The restriction of range problem and non-ignorable selection processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 604-610.

Heckman, J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47, 153-161.

10.

Judge, G. G. , Hill, R. C. , Griffiths, W. E. , Lutkepohl, H. , & Lee, T. (1988). Introduction to the theory and practice of econometrics(2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley.

11.

Lawley, D. N. (1943). A note on Karl Pearson’s selection formulae. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 62(1), 28-30.

12.

Little, R. J. A. , & Rubin, D. B. (1987). Statistical analysis with missing data. New York: John Wiley.

13.

Lord, F. M. , & Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

14.

Maddala, G. S. (1983). Limited-dependent and qualitative variables in econometrics. Cambridge, MA: Econometric Society Monographs.

15.

Mendoza, J. L. (1993). Fisher transformations for correlations corrected for selection and missing data. Psychometrika, 58, 601-615.

16.

Olson, C. A. , & Becker, B. E. (1983). A proposed technique for the treatment of restriction of range in selection validation. Psychological Bulletin, 93, 137-148.

17.

Pearson, K. (1903). Mathematical contributions to the theory of evolution—XI: On the influence of natural selection on the variability and correlation of organs. Philosophical Transactions, CC.-A., 321, 1-66.

18.

Rubin, D. B. (1976). Inference and missing data. Biometrika, 63, 581-592.

19.

Sackett, P. R. ,& Yang, H. (2000). Correction for range restriction: An expanded typology. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 112-118.

20.

Thorndike, R. L. (1949). Personnel selection: Test and measurement techniques. New York: John Wiley.

21.

U.S. Department of Labor . (1989). Human resource policies and practices in American firms. Washington, DC: Author.