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

Author:

Held Janet D.1,Foley Paul P.1

Affiliation:

1. Department (Code 12), Navy Personnel Research and Development Center, 53335 Ryne Road, San Diego CA 92152-7250, U.S.A.

Abstract

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.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Psychology (miscellaneous),Social Sciences (miscellaneous)

Reference30 articles.

1. Correction for Restriction of Range when Both X and Y are Truncated

2. An Empirical Comparison of the Accuracy of Univariate and Multivariate Corrections for Range Restriction

3. Univariate selection: The effects of size of correlation, degree of skew, and degree of restriction

4. Foley, P.P. & Rucker, L.S. (1989). An overview of the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB). In R. F. Dillon & J. W. Pellegrino (Eds.), Testing: Theoretical and applied perspectives (pp. 16-35). New York: Praeger Publishers.

Cited by 20 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3