Premium
The Observation of Incremental Validity Does Not Always Mean Unique Contribution to Prediction
Author(s) -
Ree Malcolm James,
Carretta Thomas R.
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
international journal of selection and assessment
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.812
H-Index - 61
eISSN - 1468-2389
pISSN - 0965-075X
DOI - 10.1111/j.1468-2389.2011.00556.x
Subject(s) - variance (accounting) , psychology , attribution , interpretation (philosophy) , econometrics , statistics , variable (mathematics) , regression , regression analysis , common method variance , cognitive psychology , social psychology , computer science , mathematics , mathematical analysis , accounting , psychoanalysis , business , programming language
Statistical analyses require proper interpretation. Misinterpretation leads to a lack of understanding of the relationships among variables. Worse, it can lead to misunderstanding of these relationships, which sometimes lead researchers and practitioners to infer the presence of a source of variance that is not present. This is especially true in regression where increased predictiveness from an additional variable may be due to either common or specific variance. In many instances, erroneous interpretation leads to erroneous attribution of the source of the improved prediction. Three examples are provided and methods for detecting specific variance are suggested.