Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-g4j75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-07T18:35:32.556Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Robustness of the Usual Correction for Restriction in Range Due to Explicit Selection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

D. J. Holmes
D. J. Holmes*
Affiliation:
University of Southampton
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to D. J. Holmes (Experimental Officer), Department of Social Statistics, University of Southampton, Southampton, S09 5NH, ENGLAND.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Corrections for restriction in range due to explicit selection assume the linearity of regression and homoscedastic array variances. This paper develops a theoretical framework in which the effects of some common forms of violation of these assumptions on the estimation of the unrestricted correlation can be investigated. Simple expressions are derived for both the restricted and corrected correlations in terms of the target (unrestricted) correlation in these situations.

Keywords

selectionrestriction in rangecorrelation coefficientsrobustness
Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 55 , Issue 1 , March 1990 , pp. 19 - 32
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 The Psychometric Society

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.)

Footnotes

The author is grateful to D. Holt, C. J. Skinner and T. M. F. Smith (all University of Southampton) for their helpful comments. Research was initially supported by grant No. HR7152 from the Economic and Social Research Council.

References

Birnbaum, Z. W., Paulson, E., Andrews, F. C. (1950). On the effect of selection performed on some coordinates of a multidimensional population. Psychometrika, 15, 191–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghiselli, E. E. (1966). The validity of occupational aptitude tests, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Greener, J. M., Osburn, H. G. (1980). Accuracy of corrections for restriction in range due to explicit selection in heteroscedastic and nonlinear distributions. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 40, 337–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guion, R. M. (1965). Personnel testing, New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Holmes, D. J. (1987). The effect of selection on the robustness of multivariate methods, Southampton, England: University of Southampton, Department of Social Statistics.Google Scholar
Johnson, N. L., Kotz, S. (1970). Continuous univariate distribution—1, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Linn, R. L. (1968). Range restriction problems in the use of self-selected groups for test validation. Psychological Bulletin, 69, 69–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, F. M., Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Pfeffermann, D., Holmes, D. J. (1985). Robustness considerations in the choice of a method of inference for regression analysis of survey data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, 148, 268–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, H. (1986). Truncated and censored samples from normal populations, New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
Skinner, C. J. (1982). Multivariate analysis of sample survey data, Southampton, England: University of Southampton, Department of Social Statistics.Google Scholar
Skinner, C. J., Holmes, D. J., Smith, T. M. F. (1986). The effect of sample design on principal component analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81, 789–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar