Cited by 84Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsPsychometric Methodologies and TestingReliability and Agreement in Measurement

Correcting the Effect Size of d for Range Restriction and Unreliability

Bobko, Philip, Roth, Philip L., Bobko, Christopher·2001·Organizational Research Methods

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

Crossref · 10.1177/109442810141003

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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
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