Abstract
The common practice in meta-analyses and in individual studies of correcting for direct range restriction even though range restriction is actually indirect has long been known to lead to under-correction, but this error has been assumed to be small. Using validity generalization data sets for 4 jobs, this study calibrated this error by comparing meta-analysis results based on corrections for direct range restriction with the more accurate results from a recently developed method of correcting for indirect range restriction. It was found that, on average, correction for direct range restriction resulted in substantial underestimation of operational validities for both job performance measures (21%) and training performance measures (28%). In addition, 90% credibility values were on average underestimated by 38%-40%. In addition to the implications for personnel selection, these findings suggest that similar underestimation of important relationships has occurred in other areas of research, with potential implications for theory development.
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.
