Explanations for Accuracy of the General Multivariate Formulas in Correcting for Range Restriction

Univariate and multivariate corrections for range re striction were compared using Navy applicant scores on the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB). Two Navy school ASVAB selector composites were used separately and together to simulate three selection situations for nine selection ratios (SRs). The selectors then were used as predictors. Composite va lidities (the ASVAB Mechanical Comprehension test was the criterion) were corrected using the univariate and the general multivariate formulas. In general, multivariate corrections were more accurate than univariate correc tions, notably when the univariate explicit selection variable was negatively skewed and correction viola tions (linearity and homoscedasticity) did not offset each other. Multivariate correction accuracy was attributed to the inclusion of variables with adequate distributional properties, the compensatory effects of regression weights, and the related psychometric principle that differentially weighting a large number of correlated predictor variables has little impact on a multiple cor relation. Index terms: correction formulas, explicit selection, incidental selection, multivariate correction formulas, restriction in range, validation studies.

[1]  Samuel Forest,et al.  Personnel Selection: Test and Measurement Techniques , 1952 .

[2]  J. K. Brewer,et al.  Univariate selection: The effects of size of correlation, degree of skew, and degree of restriction , 1969 .

[3]  H. Gulliksen Theory of mental tests , 1952 .

[4]  M. R. Novick,et al.  Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores. , 1971 .

[5]  Janet D. Held Validation of the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) selector Composites: Radioman (RM) Class 'A' School , 1992 .

[6]  A. Gross,et al.  Restriction of Range Corrections When Both Distribution and Selection Assumptions Are Violated , 1983 .

[7]  Karl Pearson,et al.  Mathematical Contributions to the Theory of Evolution. XI. On the Influence of Natural Selection on the Variability and Correlation of Organs , 1903 .

[8]  D. Lawley IV.—A Note on Karl Pearson's Selection Formulæ , 1944, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. Section A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences.

[9]  W. Holtzman Fundamental statistics in psychology and education. , 1951 .

[10]  Richard A. Kass,et al.  Factorial Validity of the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB), Forms 8, 9 and 10: 1981 Army Applicant Sample , 1983 .

[11]  Abram G Bayroff,et al.  The Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery. , 1970 .

[12]  H. Taylor,et al.  The relationship of validity coefficients to the practical effectiveness of tests in selection: discussion and tables. , 1939 .

[13]  E. Alf,et al.  Correction of validity coefficients for direct restriction in range occasioned by univariate selection. , 1978 .

[14]  J. Levin The occurrence of an increase in correlation by restriction of range , 1972 .

[15]  A. Gross Relaxing the Assumptions Underlying Corrections for Restriction of Range , 1982 .

[16]  R. L. Thorndike RESEARCH PROBLEMS AND TECHNIQUES , 1947 .

[17]  George M. Alliger,et al.  Correction for Restriction of Range when Both X and Y are Truncated , 1984 .

[18]  Delwyn L. Harnisch,et al.  Corrections for range restriction: An empirical investigation of conditions resulting in conservative corrections. , 1981 .

[19]  J. Mendoza,et al.  A Bootstrap Confidence Interval Based on a Correlation Corrected for Range Restriction. , 1991, Multivariate behavioral research.

[20]  C. Olson,et al.  A proposed technique for the treatment of restriction of range of selected validation. , 1983 .

[21]  Robert L. Linn,et al.  Range restriction problems in the use of self-selected groups for test validation. , 1968 .

[22]  J. Pellegrino,et al.  Testing: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives , 1989 .

[23]  H. G. Osburn,et al.  An Empirical Study of the Accuracy of Corrections for Restriction in Range Due to Explicit Selection , 1979 .