Cohen's d Corrected for Case IV Range Restriction: A More Accurate Procedure for Evaluating Subgroup Differences in Organizational Research

Abstract

Organizational and staffing researchers are often interested in evaluating whether subgroup differences exist (e.g., between Caucasian and African‐American individuals) on predictors of job performance. To investigate subgroup differences, researchers often will collect data from current employees to make inferences about subgroup differences among job applicants. However, the magnitude of subgroup differences (i.e., Cohen's d) within incumbent samples may be different (i.e., smaller) than the magnitude of subgroup differences in applicant samples because selection of applicants typically reduces the variance of scores on the predictors (i.e., because lower scoring applicants are not selected). If researchers seek to generalize a d value in an incumbent sample to the applicant population, they may use Bobko, Roth, and Bobko's (correcting the effect size of d for range restriction and unreliability, 2001) Case II or III correction. By extension, Hunter, Schmidt, and Le (implications of direct and indirect range restriction for meta‐analysis methods and findings, 2006) have proposed a Case IV correction, which is more realistic than Bobko et al.'s approach. Therefore, this paper develops a Case IV correction for d (i.e., dc4). The simulation results showed that the dc4 was generally accurate across 6,000 simulation conditions. Moreover, 2 published datasets were reanalyzed to show the influence of the Case IV correction on d. In addition, implications and future directions of the dc4 are discussed.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 11 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.