The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Implications of direct and indirect range restriction for meta-analysis methods and findings.
Abstract
Range restriction in most data sets is indirect, but the meta-analysis methods used to date have applied the correction for direct range restriction to data in which range restriction is indirect. The authors show that this results in substantial undercorrections for the effects of range restriction, and they present meta-analysis methods for making accurate corrections when range restriction is indirect. Applying these methods to a well-known large-sample empirical database, the authors estimate that previous meta-analyses have underestimated the correlation between general mental ability and job performance by about 25%, indicating that this is potentially an important methodological issue in meta-analysis in general.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2015) · doi:10.4135/9781483398105 · Cited by 5,542
Self-citationSchmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.124.2.262 · Cited by 4,180
Self-citationOn the practice of dichotomization of quantitative variables.
MacCallum, R. C., Zhang, S., Preacher, K. J., & Rucker, D. D. (2002) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.7.1.19 · Cited by 3,538 · cited 1×
“Other simple artifacts of this sort include artificial dichotomization of quantitative variables (Hunter & Schmidt, 1990b; MacCallum, Zhang, Preacher, & Rucker, 2002 ) and imperfect construct validity (systematic error of measurement; Hunter & Schmidt, 2004).”
BackgroundHunter, J., & Schmidt, F. (2004) · doi:10.4135/9781412985031 · Cited by 3,023
Self-citationFixed-and random-effects models in meta-analysis.
Hedges, L. V., & Vevea, J. L. (1998) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.3.4.486 · Cited by 2,977
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2000) · International Journal of Selection and Assessment · doi:10.1111/1468-2389.00156 · Cited by 833 · cited 2×
“Recent literature includes numerous articles on the distinctions between, and properties of, fixed effects versus random effects models in meta-analysis (Field, 2001; Hedges & Vevea, 1998; Hall & Brannick, 2002; Hunter & Schmidt, 2000; Schmidt & Hunter, 2003; Schmidt, Oh, & Hayes, 2006).”
BackgroundMethodSelf-citationMeasurement error in psychological research: Lessons from 26 research scenarios.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1996) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.1.2.199 · Cited by 567
Self-citationPearson, K. (1903) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical or Physical Character · doi:10.1098/rsta.1903.0001 · Cited by 415
Development and test of a new model for validity generalization.
Callender, J. C., & Osburn, H. G. (1980) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.65.5.543 · Cited by 112
Cited by
Exploratory Factor Analysis: A Guide to Best Practice
Watkins, M. W. (2018) · Journal of Black Psychology · doi:10.1177/0095798418771807 · Cited by 2,218
Emotional intelligence: An integrative meta-analysis and cascading model
Joseph, D. L., & Newman, D. A. (2010) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0017286 · Cited by 1,722
Field, A. P., & Gillett, R. (2010) · British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology · doi:10.1348/000711010x502733 · Cited by 1,162
Emotional intelligence predicts academic performance: a meta-analysis
MacCann, C., Jiang, Y., Brown, L. E. R., Double, K. S., Bucich, M., & Minbashian, A. (2020) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000219 · Cited by 1,121
The Too-Much-of-a-Good-Thing Effect in Management
Pierce, J. R., & Aguinis, H. (2013) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206311410060 · Cited by 1,085
Metadata
- Authors
- Hunter, J. E., Schmidt, F. L., & Le, H.
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Psychology
- Published
- 2006
- Volume
- 91
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 594-612
- ISSN
- 0021-9010 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1854
- OpenAlex
- W2069707194
- Cited by
- 308
- References
- 9
- FWCI
- 13.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Implications of direct and indirect range restriction for meta-analysis methods and findings. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.594
- The paper
- Hunter, J. E., Schmidt, F. L., & Le, H. (2006). Implications of direct and indirect range restriction for meta-analysis methods and findings. Journal of Applied Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.594
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
