This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Bobko, P. Articles by Bobko, C. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Correcting the Effect Size of d for Range Restriction and Unreliability

Gettysburg College

Philip L. Roth

Clemson University

Christopher Bobko

Princeton University

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.

Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 4, No. 1, 46-61 (2001)
DOI: 10.1177/109442810141003


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. E. Ployhart and F. L. Oswald Applications of Mean and Covariance Structure Analysis: Integrating Correlational and Experimental Approaches Organizational Research Methods, January 1, 2004; 7(1): 27 - 65. [Abstract] [PDF]