Hostname: page-component-5f745c7db-q8b2h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-06T07:51:51.024Z Has data issue: true hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Univariate Selection: The Effects of size of Correlation, Degree of Skew, and Degree of Restriction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

James K. Brewer  and
John R. Hills
James K. Brewer
Affiliation:
Florida State University
John R. Hills
Affiliation:
Florida State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Pearson's formula for univariate selection was derived with the assumption of normality of variates before and after selection. This study examined the influence of skew upon estimates from Pearson's formula under certain conditions. It was found that even with essentially symmetric distributions, a large proportion of the data is necessary to obtain reasonably precise estimates of low correlations. With increasing skew, estimates become increasingly erroneous, the direction of the error depending upon which tail of the distribution is the basis of the estimates. Difficulties in applying correction for univariate selection in several studies of the predictability of college-grades for Negroes from scores on standard aptitude tests are discussed.

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 34 , Issue 3 , September 1969 , pp. 347 - 361
Copyright
Copyright © 1969 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

*

This manuscript was completed while the senior author was on an NSF Science Faculty Fellowship at Stanford University.

References

Biaggio, A. M. Relative predictability of freshman grade point averages from SAT scores in Negro and White Southern colleges, 1966, Madison, Wisconsin: Research and Development Center for Learning and Re-Education, University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Boneau, C. A. The effects of violations of assumptions underlying the t test. Psychological Bulletin, 1960, 57, 49–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gulliksen, H. O. Theory of mental tests, 1950, New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hills, J. R., & Gladney, M. B. Predicting grades from below chance test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 1968, 5, 45–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawley, D. N. A note on Karl Pearson's selection formulae. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 1943, 62, 28–30.Google Scholar
Linn, R. L. Range restriction problems in the use of self-selected groups for test validation. Psychological Bulletin, 1968, 69, 69–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munday, L. Predicting college grades in predominantly Negro colleges. Journal of Educational Measurement, 1965, 2, 157–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, K. Mathematical contributions to the theory of evolution—XI. On the influence of natural selection on the variability and correlation of organs. Philosophical Transactions, 1903, 200-A, 1–66.Google Scholar
Rydberg, S. Bias in prediction: On correction methods, 1963, Stockholm: Almquist and Wiksells.Google Scholar
Stanley, J. C., & Porter, A. C. Correlation of Scholastic Aptitude Test scores with college grades for Negroes versus Whites. Journal of Educational Measurement, 1967, 4, 199–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorndike, R. L. Personnel selection, 1949, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar