Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T11:55:11.415Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

When It's Incorrect to Correct: A Brief History and Cautionary Note

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 April 2015

Justin A. DeSimone
Justin A. DeSimone*
Affiliation:
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 7 , Issue 4 , December 2014 , pp. 527 - 531
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Callender, J. C., & Osburn, H. G. (1980). Development and test of a new model for validity generalization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 543–558.Google Scholar
Cronbach, L. J. (1947). Test “reliability”: Its meaning and determination. Psychometrika, 12, 1–16.Google Scholar
Greener, J. M., & Osburn, H. G. (1979). An empirical study of the accuracy of corrections for restriction of range due to explicit selection. Applied Psychological Measurement, 3, 31–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gross, A. L. (1990). A maximum likelihood approach to test validation with missing and censored dependent variables. Psychometrika, 3, 533–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gross, A. L., & Kagen, E. (1983). Not correcting for restriction of range can be advantageous. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 43, 389–396.Google Scholar
Holmes, D. J. (1990). The robustness of the usual correction for restriction in range due to explicit selection. Psychometrika, 55, 19–32.Google Scholar
James, L. R. (1973). Criterion models and construct validity for criteria. Psychological Bulletin, 80, 75–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., Mulaik, S. A., & Ladd, R. T. (1992). Validity generalization in the context of situational models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 3–14.Google Scholar
James, L. R., Mulaik, S. A., & Brett, J. M. (1982). Causal analysis: Assumptions, models, and data. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Lawley, D. N. (1943). A note on Karl Pearson's selection formulae. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 62(Section A, Pt. 1), 28–30.Google Scholar
LeBreton, J. M., Scherer, K. T., & James, L. R. (2014). Corrections for criterion reliability in validity generalization: A false prophet in a land of suspended judgment. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 7(4), 478–500.Google Scholar
Lord, F. M., & Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Lumsden, J. (1976). Test theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 27, 251–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lykken, D. T. (1991). What's wrong with psychology anyway? In Chiccetti, D., & Grove, W. (Eds.), Thinking clearly about psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 3–39). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Mendoza, J. L., & Mumford, M. (1987). Corrections for attenuation and range restriction on the predictor. Journal of Educational Statistics, 12, 282–293.Google Scholar
Pearlman, K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1980). Validity generalization results for tests used to predict job proficiency and training success in clerical professions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 373–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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 of the Royal Society, London, Series A, 200, 1–66.Google Scholar
Pearson, K. (1904). On the inheritance of the mental and moral characters in man, and its comparison with the inheritance of the physical characters. Biometrika, 3, 131–190.Google Scholar
Raju, N. S., Lezotte, D. V., Fearing, B. K., & Oshima, T. C. (2006). A note on correlations corrected for unreliability and range restriction. Applied Psychological Measurement, 30, 145–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, F. L., Hunter, J. E., & Urry, V. W. (1976). Statistical power in criterion-related validation studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 473–485.Google Scholar
Schmidt, F. L., Shaffer, J. A., & Oh, I. (2008). Increased accuracy for range restriction corrections: Implications for the role of personality and general mental ability in job and training performance. Personnel Psychology, 61, 827–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spearman, C. (1904). The proof and measurement of association between two things. American Journal of Psychology, 15, 72–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spearman, C. (1907). Demonstration of formulae for true measurement of correlation. American Journal of Psychology, 18, 161–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spearman, C. (1910). Correlation calculated from faulty data. British Journal of Psychology, 3, 271–295.Google Scholar
Thorndike, R. L. (1949). Personnel selection: Test and measurement techniques. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Thouless, R. H. (1939). The effect of errors of measurement on correlation coefficients. British Journal of Psychology, 29, 383–403.Google Scholar
Thurstone, L. L. (1931). The reliability and validity of tests. Ann Arbor, MI: Edwards Brothers.Google Scholar