Range restriction corrections in personnel selection: A mixed range restriction correction approach to overcome a key limitation in applying Case V.

IF 9.4 1区心理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT

Journal of Applied Psychology Pub Date : 2025-03-27 DOI:10.1037/apl0001276

Huy Le, In-Sue Oh, Philip L Roth, Frank L Schmidt

{"title":"Range restriction corrections in personnel selection: A mixed range restriction correction approach to overcome a key limitation in applying Case V.","authors":"Huy Le, In-Sue Oh, Philip L Roth, Frank L Schmidt","doi":"10.1037/apl0001276","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Recent advancements in range restriction (RR) correction research suggest that Case V (Dahlke & Wiernik, 2020; Le et al., 2016) is one of the most accurate approaches to correct for (indirect) RR. However, researchers have had difficulty applying the Case V approach, especially in validation and meta-analytic (including validity generalization) studies, because of the lack of information regarding one of its key components: the RR ratio of the criterion (uY), particularly in the context of job performance ratings. In the present study, we provide a solution to this problem by presenting a mixed approach using Case IV to estimate the uY of job performance ratings, a critical input in implementing Case V correction (by doing so, mixing Cases IV and V). The premise for this mixed approach hinges upon prior findings that Case IV yields the same unbiased estimates as does Case V as long as its \"full mediation\" assumption is met. The accuracy of the approach is then tested and compared to those of existing RR correction approaches (Cases II, IV, and V) using Monte Carlo simulations covering a wide range of conditions researchers may realistically encounter in their research. We discuss the present study's implications for personnel selection research and practice, along with study limitations and future research directions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":15135,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001276","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Recent advancements in range restriction (RR) correction research suggest that Case V (Dahlke & Wiernik, 2020; Le et al., 2016) is one of the most accurate approaches to correct for (indirect) RR. However, researchers have had difficulty applying the Case V approach, especially in validation and meta-analytic (including validity generalization) studies, because of the lack of information regarding one of its key components: the RR ratio of the criterion (uY), particularly in the context of job performance ratings. In the present study, we provide a solution to this problem by presenting a mixed approach using Case IV to estimate the uY of job performance ratings, a critical input in implementing Case V correction (by doing so, mixing Cases IV and V). The premise for this mixed approach hinges upon prior findings that Case IV yields the same unbiased estimates as does Case V as long as its "full mediation" assumption is met. The accuracy of the approach is then tested and compared to those of existing RR correction approaches (Cases II, IV, and V) using Monte Carlo simulations covering a wide range of conditions researchers may realistically encounter in their research. We discuss the present study's implications for personnel selection research and practice, along with study limitations and future research directions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

查看原文本刊更多论文

人员选择中的距离限制修正：一种克服案例V应用中关键限制的混合距离限制修正方法。

范围限制（RR）修正研究的最新进展表明，案例V (Dahlke & Wiernik, 2020；Le et al., 2016)是纠正（间接）RR的最准确方法之一。然而，研究人员很难应用案例V方法，特别是在验证和荟萃分析（包括有效性泛化）研究中，因为缺乏关于其关键组成部分之一的信息：标准的RR比（uY），特别是在工作绩效评级的背景下。在本研究中，我们通过提出一种混合方法来解决这个问题，使用案例IV来估计工作绩效评级的方式，这是实施案例V校正的关键输入（通过这样做，混合案例IV和V）。这种混合方法的前提取决于先前的发现，即只要满足其“完全中介”假设，案例IV就会产生与案例V相同的无偏估计。然后使用蒙特卡罗模拟测试该方法的准确性，并将其与现有的RR校正方法（案例II、IV和V）进行比较，这些方法涵盖了研究人员在研究中可能实际遇到的各种条件。本文讨论了本研究对人才选拔研究和实践的启示，以及研究的局限性和未来的研究方向。（PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA，版权所有）。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Applied Psychology Multiple-

CiteScore

17.60

自引率

6.10%

发文量

175

期刊介绍： The Journal of Applied Psychology® focuses on publishing original investigations that contribute new knowledge and understanding to fields of applied psychology (excluding clinical and applied experimental or human factors, which are better suited for other APA journals). The journal primarily considers empirical and theoretical investigations that enhance understanding of cognitive, motivational, affective, and behavioral psychological phenomena in work and organizational settings. These phenomena can occur at individual, group, organizational, or cultural levels, and in various work settings such as business, education, training, health, service, government, or military institutions. The journal welcomes submissions from both public and private sector organizations, for-profit or nonprofit. It publishes several types of articles, including: 1.Rigorously conducted empirical investigations that expand conceptual understanding (original investigations or meta-analyses). 2.Theory development articles and integrative conceptual reviews that synthesize literature and generate new theories on psychological phenomena to stimulate novel research. 3.Rigorously conducted qualitative research on phenomena that are challenging to capture with quantitative methods or require inductive theory building.