To correct or not to correct for range restriction, that is the question: Looking back and ahead to move forward

IF 11.5 3区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED

Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice Pub Date : 2023-08-31 DOI:10.1017/iop.2023.38

In-Sue Oh, Jorge Mendoza, H. Le

{"title":"To correct or not to correct for range restriction, that is the question: Looking back and ahead to move forward","authors":"In-Sue Oh, Jorge Mendoza, H. Le","doi":"10.1017/iop.2023.38","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Sackett et al. (2023) start their focal article by stating that they identified “previously unnoticed flaws” in range restriction (RR) corrections in most validity generalization (VG) meta-analyses of selection procedures reviewed in their 2022 article. Following this provocative opening statement, they discuss how both researchers and practitioners have handled (and should handle) RR corrections in estimating the operational validity of a selection procedure in both VG metaanalyses (whose input studies are predominantly concurrent studies) and individual validation studies (which serve as input to VG meta-analyses). The purpose of this commentary is twofold. We first provide an essential review of Sackett et al.’s (2022) three propositions serving as the major rationales for their recommendations regarding RR corrections (e.g., no corrections for RR in concurrent validation studies). We then provide our critical analyses of their rationales and recommendations regarding RR corrections to put them in perspective, along with some additional thoughts.","PeriodicalId":47771,"journal":{"name":"Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice","volume":"16 1","pages":"322 - 327"},"PeriodicalIF":11.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2023.38","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

Abstract

Sackett et al. (2023) start their focal article by stating that they identified “previously unnoticed flaws” in range restriction (RR) corrections in most validity generalization (VG) meta-analyses of selection procedures reviewed in their 2022 article. Following this provocative opening statement, they discuss how both researchers and practitioners have handled (and should handle) RR corrections in estimating the operational validity of a selection procedure in both VG metaanalyses (whose input studies are predominantly concurrent studies) and individual validation studies (which serve as input to VG meta-analyses). The purpose of this commentary is twofold. We first provide an essential review of Sackett et al.’s (2022) three propositions serving as the major rationales for their recommendations regarding RR corrections (e.g., no corrections for RR in concurrent validation studies). We then provide our critical analyses of their rationales and recommendations regarding RR corrections to put them in perspective, along with some additional thoughts.

查看原文本刊更多论文

纠正或不纠正范围限制，这是一个问题:回顾过去，向前迈进

Sackett等人(2023)在其重点文章的开头指出，他们在2022年的文章中回顾的大多数效度概括(VG)荟萃分析中，在范围限制(RR)修正中发现了“以前未被注意到的缺陷”。在这一具有煽动性的开场白之后，他们讨论了研究人员和实践者在VG元分析(其输入研究主要是并发研究)和个体验证研究(作为VG元分析的输入)中评估选择程序的操作有效性时如何处理(并且应该处理)RR修正。这篇评论的目的是双重的。我们首先对Sackett等人(2022)的三个命题进行了基本回顾，这些命题作为他们关于RR修正建议的主要依据(例如，在并发验证研究中不修正RR)。然后，我们对他们的基本原理和关于RR修正的建议进行批判性分析，以正确看待他们，以及一些额外的想法。

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

Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED-

CiteScore

7.70

自引率

10.10%

发文量

期刊介绍： Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice is a peer-reviewed academic journal published on behalf of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. The journal focuses on interactive exchanges on topics of importance to the science and practice of the field. It features articles that present new ideas or different takes on existing ideas, stimulating dialogue about important issues in the field. Additionally, the journal is indexed and abstracted in Clarivate Analytics SSCI, Clarivate Analytics Web of Science, European Reference Index for the Humanities and Social Sciences (ERIH PLUS), ProQuest, PsycINFO, and Scopus.