Determining the Significance of Correlations Corrected for Unreliability and Range Restriction

By N. Raju, P. A. Brand. 2003

109 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7283fb5cc95252f64f690568a4e2aa9cec9c5362

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

Workplace safety: a meta-analysis of the roles of person and situation factors. (2009, methodology): “The reader is referred to more recent discussions by Raju and Brand (2003) and Raju, Lezotte, Fearing, and Oshima (2006) on the estimation of the standard errors for individually corrected correlations with samplebased and assumed (fixed) artifact values within Raju et al.’s meta-analytic…”
Change the Referent? A Meta-Analytic Investigation of Direct and Referent-Shift Consensus Models for Organizational Climate (2016, methodology): “…were not uniformly reported in group-level studies, and arguably their use in the RBNl meta-analytic procedures would call for treating them as assumed fixed reliability estimates given how reliability was defined by Raju and colleagues (see Raju & Brand, 2003; Raju et al., 1991: Appendix A).”
Do other-reports of counterproductive work behavior provide an incremental contribution over self-reports? A meta-analytic comparison. (2012, methodology): “…of the 95% confidence interval around the corrected mean d value; z ϭ the z statistic calculated using Formula 14 (and using Formula 9 to calculate sampling variance) from Raju and Brand (2003) for assessing the significance of the difference between the corrected correlations (d values were…”
A comparison of two approaches to correction of restriction of range in correlation analysis (2009, background): “The most common form of range restriction occurs when a researcher wants to estimate the correlation between two variables (x and y) in a population, but subjects are selected on x, and data for y are only available for a selected sample ( Raju & Brand, 2003 ).”
Are Counterproductive Work Behavior and Withdrawal Empirically Distinct? A Meta-Analytic Investigation (2017, methodology): “To determine whether there was a significant difference between correlations across moderator categories, we used formulas from Raju and Brand (2003) to test whether the differences between corrected correlations were significant.”
The differential effects of transformational leadership facets on employee safety (2014, background): “After correcting for artifactual error (i.e., sampling error, Raju and Brand, 2003), this correlation was r = .16.”
The Assessment of Reliability Under Range Restriction (2012, background): “Indeed, many researchers have derived various statistical procedures assuming that restricted reliability estimates are unbiased (e.g., Schmidt et al., 2006; Raju & Brand, 2003).”
Gender and leadership emergence: A meta‐analysis and explanatory model (2018, methodology): “Categorical moderators (e.g., study setting) were evaluated using procedures outlined by Raju and Brand (2003) to test whether themeta-analytic effect sizes differed significantly across conditions.”
Effect size and power in assessing moderating effects of categorical variables using multiple regression: a 30-year review. (2005, methodology): “Note that Bobko and Rieck (1980) and Raju and Brand (2003) examined standard errors of sample correlations corrected for measurement error as well as properties of statistical tests based on the corrected correlations.”