Differential validity for cognitive ability tests in employment and educational settings: Not much more than range restriction?

2014 ◽  
Vol 99 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip L. Roth ◽  
Huy Le ◽  
In-Sue Oh ◽  
Chad H. Van Iddekinge ◽  
Maury A. Buster ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Ability ◽  
Educational Settings ◽  
Range Restriction ◽  
Differential Validity ◽  
Cognitive Ability Tests ◽  
Ability Tests

An exploration of measurement bias due to worry and emotionality components of test anxiety on cognitive ability tests

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Georgia Papantoniou ◽  
Despina Moraitou ◽  
Dimitra Filippidou ◽  
Magda Dinou ◽  
Effie Katsadima
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Ability ◽  
Test Anxiety ◽  
Measurement Bias ◽  
Cognitive Ability Tests ◽  
Ability Tests

THE EFFECTS OF APPLICANTs' REACTIONS TO COGNITIVE ABILITY TESTS AND AN ASSESSMENT CENTER

1994 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 715-738 ◽  
Author(s):  
THERESE HOFF MACAN ◽  
MARCIA J. AVEDON ◽  
MATTHEW PAESE ◽  
DAVID E. SMITH
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Ability ◽  
Assessment Center ◽  
Cognitive Ability Tests ◽  
Ability Tests

scholarly journals Measurement and structural invariance of cognitive ability tests after computer-based training

2019 ◽  
Vol 93 ◽  
pp. 370-378 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Hermes ◽  
Frank Albers ◽  
Jan R. Böhnke ◽  
Gerrit Huelmann ◽  
Julia Maier ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Ability ◽  
Computer Based Training ◽  
Cognitive Ability Tests ◽  
Ability Tests ◽  
Computer Based ◽  
Structural Invariance

Retest effects in cognitive ability tests: A meta-analysis

Intelligence ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 67 ◽  
pp. 44-66 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jana Scharfen ◽  
Judith Marie Peters ◽  
Heinz Holling
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Ability ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cognitive Ability Tests ◽  
Ability Tests

scholarly journals Have Standard Formulas Correcting Correlations for Range Restriction Been Adequately Tested?: Minor Sampling Distribution Quirks Distort Them

2017 ◽  
Vol 78 (6) ◽  
pp. 1021-1055 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wendy Johnson ◽  
Ian J. Deary ◽  
Thomas J. Bouchard
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Ability ◽  
Sample Selection ◽  
Population Level ◽  
Maximum Likelihood Estimates ◽  
Range Restriction ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Ability Tests ◽  
Highly Correlated

Most study samples show less variability in key variables than do their source populations due most often to indirect selection into study participation associated with a wide range of personal and circumstantial characteristics. Formulas exist to correct the distortions of population-level correlations created. Formula accuracy has been tested using simulated normally distributed data, but empirical data are rarely available for testing. We did so in a rare data set in which it was possible: the 6-Day Sample, a representative subsample of 1,208 from the Scottish Mental Survey 1947 of cognitive ability in 1936-born Scottish schoolchildren (70,805). 6-Day Sample participants completed a follow-up assessment in childhood and were re-recruited for study at age 77 years. We compared full 6-Day Sample correlations of early-life variables with those of the range-restricted correlations in the later-participating subsample, before and after adjustment for direct and indirect range restriction. Results differed, especially for two highly correlated cognitive tests; neither reproduced full-sample correlations well due to small deviations from normal distribution in skew and kurtosis. Maximum likelihood estimates did little better. To assess these results’ typicality, we simulated sample selection and made similar comparisons using the 42 cognitive ability tests administered to the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart, with very similar results. We discuss problems in developing further adjustments to offset range-restriction distortions and possible approaches to solutions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document