The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Correction for Attenuation
Abstract
This article examines the statistical correction for attenuation and the controversies surrounding the procedure. Although originally developed for test construction purposes, the correction for attenuation is also used in meta-analysis and assessments of validity generalization. Since Spearman's classic article in 1904, correct use and interpretation of the correction for attenuation has been debated. The logic of the double and single correction formulae is discussed as well as the correction producing validity coefficients greater than 1.00. Three types of misapplications and misinterpretations of the correction in published literature are presented. The article concludes with arguments pertaining to the use of the correction formula, and it attempts to sharpen the focus of issues that have led to differences of opinion about its meaning and purpose.
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
The proof and measurement of association between two things
Spearman, C. (1904) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.2307/1412159 · Cited by 8,039
Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0076546 · Cited by 7,246
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
Cited by
The Sources of Four Commonly Reported Cutoff Criteria: What Did They Really Say?
Lance, C. E., Butts, M. M., & Michels, L. C. (2006) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428105284919 · Cited by 2,053
Livingston, J. D., & Boyd, J. E. (2010) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.09.030 · Cited by 1,677
The reliability paradox: Why robust cognitive tasks do not produce reliable individual differences
Hedge, C., Powell, G., & Sumner, P. (2018) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-017-0935-1 · Cited by 1,457
An Updated Guideline for Assessing Discriminant Validity
Rönkkö, M., & Cho, E. (2022) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428120968614 · Cited by 1,309
The Tie That Binds? Coherence Among Emotion Experience, Behavior, and Physiology.
Mauss, I. B., Levenson, R. W., McCarter, L., Wilhelm, F. H., & Gross, J. J. (2005) · Emotion · doi:10.1037/1528-3542.5.2.175 · Cited by 1,201
Metadata
- Authors
- Muchinsky, P. M.
- Venue
- Educational and Psychological Measurement
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1996-02
- Volume
- 56
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 63-75
- ISSN
- 0013-1644 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-3888
- OpenAlex
- W2026438880
- Cited by
- 255
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 3.87
- 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: The Correction for Attenuation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0013164496056001004
- The paper
- Muchinsky, P. M. (1996). The Correction for Attenuation. Educational and Psychological Measurement. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164496056001004
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.
