Increasing the Accuracy of Corrections for Range Restriction: Implications for Selection Procedure Validities and Other Research Results

The common practice in meta‐analyses and in individual studies of correcting for direct range restriction even though range restriction is actually indirect has long been known to lead to undercorrection, but this error has been assumed to be small. Using validity generalization data sets for 4 jobs, this study calibrated this error by comparing meta‐analysis results based on corrections for direct range restriction with the more accurate results from a recently developed method of correcting for indirect range restriction. It was found that, on average, correction for direct range restriction resulted in substantial underestimation of operational validities for both job performance measures (21%) and training performance measures (28%). In addition, 90% credibility values were on average underestimated by 38%–40%. In addition to the implications for personnel selection, these findings suggest that similar underestimation of important relationships has occurred in other areas of research, with potential implications for theory development.