Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-th4rj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T10:50:15.421Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Jackknifing Disattenuated Correlations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

W. Todd Rogers
W. Todd Rogers*
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to Dr. W. Todd Rogers, University of British Columbia, 2075 Westbrook Place, Vancouver, Canada V6T 1WS.
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The utility of the jackknife for constructing confidence intervals and testing hypotheses about the disattenuated correlation is evaluated for small samples. Computer simulations were used to generate the empirical sampling distributions of jackknife statistics for two sample sizes (30, 60), five values of the disattenuated correlation coefficient (1.00, .90, .80, .50, .00) and three pairs of reliabilities (.90, .80; .80, .80; .90, .50). The theoretical and cumulative proportions of jackknife statistics were compared at selected points in the appropriate t-distributions. The results obtained support the claim that the jackknife can be used to construct sensible confidence intervals. However, the jackknife possesses limited utility for testing hypotheses about the disattenuated correlation coefficient.

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 41 , Issue 1 , March 1976, pp. 121 - 133
Copyright
Copyright © 1976 The Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

This paper is based upon part of the author’s doctoral dissertation (Rogers, 1971) completed at the University of Colorado. The author gratefully acknowledges Dr. Gene V. Glass for his interest and encouragement shown in completing this research.

References

Arveson, James N. Jackknifing U-Statistics. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 1969, 40, 2076–2100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Block, Jack The equivalence of measures and the correction for attenuation. Psychological Bulletin, 1963, 60, 152–156.10.1037/h0041811CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cochran, W. G. Some effects of errors of measurement on multiple correlations. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1970, 65, 22–35.10.1080/01621459.1970.10481059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronbach, Lee J. Test validation. In Thorndike, Robert L. (Eds.), Educational measurement, 2nd ed., Washington, D. C.: American Council on Education, 1971.Google Scholar
Cureton, Edward E. Reliability and validity: basic assumption and experimental designs. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1965, 25, 327–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forsyth, Robert A. and Feldt, Leonard S. An investigation of empirical sampling distributions of correlation coefficients corrected for attenuation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1969, 29, 61–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forsyth, Robert A. and Feldt, Leonard S. Some theoretical and empirical results related to McNemar's test that the population correlation coefficient corrected for attenuation equals 1.0. American Educational Research Journal, 1970, 7, 197–207.10.3102/00028312007002197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gulliksen, Harold Theory of mental tests, 1950, New York: John Wiley and Sons.10.1037/13240-000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jöreskog, K. G. Statistical analysis of sets of congeneric tests. Psychometrika, 1971, 36, 109–133.10.1007/BF02291393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelley, T. L. Fundamentals of statistics, 1947, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kristoff, Walter Testing whether a disattenuated correlation is perfect. In Proceedings of the 80th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 1972, 43–44.Google Scholar
Lord, Frederick M. A significance test for the hypothesis that two variables measure the same trait except for errors of measurement. Psychometrika, 1957, 22, 207–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, Frederick M. Testing if two measuring procedures measure the same psychological dimension (RB-71-36), 1971, Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
Lord, Frederick M. Problems arising from the unreliability of the measuring instrument. In DuBois, Philip H. and Mayo, G. Douglas (Eds.), Research strategies for evaluating training, 1970, Chicago: Rand McNally & Co..Google Scholar
Lord, Frederick M. and Novick, Melvin R. Statistical theories of mental test scores, 1968, Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
McNemar, Quinn Attenuation and interaction. Psychometrika, 1958, 23, 259–265.10.1007/BF02289238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Rupert G. A trustworthy jackknife. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 1964, 35, 1594–1605.10.1214/aoms/1177700384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Rupert G. The jackknife—a review. Biometrika, 1974, 61, 1–15.Google Scholar
Mosteller, F. and Tukey, J. W. Data analysis, including statistics. In Lindsey, G., Aronson, E. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology, 2nd ed., Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1968.Google Scholar
Pennel, Roger Routinely computable confidence intervals for factor loadings using the ‘jack-knife’. British Journal of Mathematical Statistics, 1972, 25, 107–114.10.1111/j.2044-8317.1972.tb00481.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quenouille, M. H. Notes on bias in estimation. Biometrika, 1956, 43, 353–360.10.1093/biomet/43.3-4.353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, William T. Jackknifing disattenuated correlations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado, 1971.Google Scholar
Shoemaker, David M. A note on allocating items to subtests in multiple matrix sampling and approximating standard errors of estimate with the jackknife. Journal of Eduational Measurement, 1973, 10, 211–219.10.1111/j.1745-3984.1973.tb00799.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spearman, C. The proof and measurement of association between two things. American Journal of Psychology, 1904, 15, 72–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spearman, C. Demonstration of formulae for true measurement of correlation. American Journal of Psychology, 1907, 18, 161–169.10.2307/1412408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spearman, C. Coefficient of correlation calculated from faculty data. British Journal of Psychology, 1910, 3, 271–295.Google Scholar
Tukey, J. W. Bias and confidence in not quite large samples. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 1958, 29, 614–614.Google Scholar
Wainer, Howard and Thissen, David When jackknifing fails (or does it?). Psychometrika, 1975, 40, 113–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar