Correcting the Effect Size of d for Range Restriction and Unreliability
Abstract
Pearson product moment correlations are often corrected for statistical artifacts such as range restriction and unreliability. Formulas have long existed to make such corrections. However, other effect size estimates are rarely corrected for these artifacts, in spite of the fact that there is an established mathematical link between the correlation and some effect size estimates. Correlations and other effect sizes are therefore vulnerable to the same artifacts. The authors take a common effect size estimate, the standardized mean difference between two groups, and derive (and reaffirm in one instance) correction formulas suitable for use with this statistic. It is demonstrated how these formulas might substantially increase the precision of estimates and decisions made within organizational research and practice, whenever correction factors can be appropriately estimated.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Restricting sampling to a narrow range of the population tends to lower effect sizes because variability is reduced.
“A common property of statistics holds that sampling from restricted ranges of the total population usually biases ES downward, due to reduced variability (Bobko, Roth, & Bobko, 2001;Fritz, Morris, & Richler, 2012).”
From Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis (2015) · cites this paper as Bobko, Roth, & Bobko, 2001
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 39 · Cited by 84
- Authors
- Bobko, P., Roth, P. L., & Bobko, C.
- Affiliations
- Gettysburg College (US)
- Clemson University (US)
- Princeton University (US)
- Venue
- Organizational Research Methods
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2001-01
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 46-61
- ISSN
- 1094-4281 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-7425
- OpenAlex
- W2133791904
- Cited by
- 84
- References
- 39
- Citations by year
- 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 2.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Organizational Research Methods (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
- Keywords
- range restriction, standardized mean difference, Pearson correlation, statistical artifacts, correction formula, organizational analysis
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