Abstract
Using computer simulation, the authors assessed the accuracy of J. E. Hunter, F. L. Schmidt, and H. Le's (2006) procedure for correcting for indirect range restriction, the most common type of range restriction, in comparison with the conventional practice of applying the Thorndike Case II correction for direct range restriction. Hunter et al.'s procedure produced more accurate estimates of both the mean and standard deviation in meta-analysis than the conventional procedure. Even when its key assumption that the effect of selection on a 3rd variable is fully mediated by the independent variable was violated, Hunter et al.'s procedure was still relatively more accurate than the conventional procedure. When applied to data from a previously published meta-analysis, the new procedure yielded results that led to different substantive conclusions.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
