Journal articles • Guttman, I., & Raju, N. S. (1965). A minimum loss function as determiner of optimal cutting scores.
Personnel Psychology, 18(2), 179-185. • Raju, N. S., & Guttman, I. (1965). A new working formula for the split-half reliability model.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 25(4), 963-967. • Raju, N. S., & Guttman, I. (1965). Correlation as a function of predictor score points.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 25(3), 655-657. • Raju, N. S. (1970). New formula for estimating total test reliability from parts of unequal lengths.
Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 5(Pt. 1), 143-144. • Raju, N. S. (1977). A generalization of coefficient alpha.
Psychometrika, 42(4), 549-565. • Raju, N. S. (1977). On estimating test variance in multiple matrix sampling.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 37(3), 621-625. • Raju, N. S. (1979). Note on two generalizations of coefficient alpha.
Psychometrika, 44(3), 347-349. • Raju, N. S. (1982). On test homogeneity and maximum KR-20.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 42(1), 145-152. • Raju, N. S. (1982). The reliability of a criterion-referenced composite with the parts of the composite having different cutting scores.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 42(1), 113-129. • Cotter, K. L., & Raju, N. S. (1982). An evaluation of formula-based population squared cross-validity estimates and factor score estimates in prediction.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 42(2), 493-519. • Devine, P. J., & Raju, N. S. (1982). Extent of overlap among four item bias methods.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 42(4), 1049-1066. • Fralicx, R. D., & Raju, N. S. (1982). A comparison of five methods for combining multiple criteria into a single composite.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 42(3), 823-827. • Raju, N. S. (1983). Obtaining the squared multiple correlations from a singular correlation matrix.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 43(1), 127-130. • Raju, N. S., & Burke, M. J. (1983). Two new procedures for studying validity generalization.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(3), 382-395. • Raju, N. S., & Burke, M. J. (1984). Correction to raju and burke.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(4), 588. • Raju, N. S., & Edwards, J. E. (1984). Note on "adverse impact from a psychometric perspective"..
Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(1), 191-193. • Raju, N. S., Edwards, J. E., & LoVerde, M. A. (1985). Corrected formulas for computing sample sizes under indirect range restriction.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(3), 565-566. • Raju, N. S., & Normand, J. (1985). The regression bias method: A unified approach for detecting item bias and selection bias.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45(1), 37-54. • Raju, N. S., Fralicx, R., & Steinhaus, S. D. (1986). Covariance and regression slope models for studying validity generalization.
Applied Psychological Measurement, 10(2), 195-211. • Goldman, S. H., & Raju, N. S. (1986). Recovery of one- and two-parameter logistic item parameters: An empirical study.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 46(1), 11-21. • Burke, M. J., Raju, N. S., & Pearlman, K. (1986). An empirical comparison of the results of five validity generalization procedures.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(2), 349-353. • Burke, M. J., Normand, J., & Raju, N. S. (1987). Examinee attitudes toward computer-administered ability testing.
Computers in Human Behavior, 3(2), 95-107. • Schmidt, F. L., Hunter, J. E., & Raju, N. S. (1988). Validity generalization and situational specificity: A second look at the 75% rule and fisher's z transformation.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(4), 665-672. • Ziering, B. A., & Raju, N. S. (1988). Development and validation of a job family specific position analysis questionnaire.
Journal of Business and Psychology, 2(3), 228-238. • Raju, N. S. (1988). The area between two item characteristic curves.
Psychometrika, 53(4), 495-502. • Neuman, G. A., Edwards, J. E., & Raju, N. S. (1989). Organizational development interventions: A meta-analysis of their effects on satisfaction and other attitudes.
Personnel Psychology, 42(3), 461-489. • Raju, N. S., Pappas, S., & Williams, C. P. (1989). An empirical monte carlo test of the accuracy of the correlation, covariance, and regression slope models for assessing validity generalization.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(6), 901-911. • Raju, N. S., Burke, M. J., & Normand, J. (1990). A new approach for utility analysis.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(1), 3-12. • Raju, N. S. (1990). Determining the significance of estimated signed and unsigned areas between two item response functions.
Applied Psychological Measurement, 14(2), 197-207. • Raju, N. S., Steinhaus, S. D., Edwards, J. E., & DeLessio, J. (1991). A
logistic regression model for personnel selection.
Applied Psychological Measurement, 15(2), 139-152. • Raju, N. S. (1991). "Determining the significance of estimated signed and unsigned areas between two item response functions": Correction.
Applied Psychological Measurement, 15(4), 352. • Raju, N. S., Burke, M. J., Normand, J., & Langlois, G. M. (1991). A new meta-analytic approach.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(3), 432-446. • Martin, S. L., & Raju, N. S. (1992). Determining cutoff scores that optimize utility: A recognition of recruiting costs.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(1), 15-23. • Raju, N. S., Burke, M. J., Normand, J., & Lezotte, D. V. (1993). What would be if what is wasn't? rejoinder to judiesch, schmidt, and hunter (1993).
Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(6), 912-916. • Raju, N. S., Drasgow, F., & Slinde, J. A. (1993). An empirical comparison of the area methods, lord's chi-square test, and the mantel-haenszel technique for assessing differential item functioning.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(2), 301-314. • Raju, N. S., Burke, M. J., & Maurer, T. J. (1995). A note on direct range restriction corrections in utility analysis.
Personnel Psychology, 48(1), 143-149. • Budgell, G. R., Raju, N. S., & Quartetti, D. A. (1995). Analysis of differential item functioning in translated assessment instruments.
Applied Psychological Measurement, 19(4), 309-321. • Raju, N. S., van der Linden, Wim J., & Fleer, P. F. (1995). IRT-based internal measures of differential functioning of items and tests.
Applied Psychological Measurement, 19(4), 353-368. • Oshima, T. C., Raju, N. S., & Flowers, C. P. (1997). Development and demonstration of multidimensional IRT-based internal measures of differential functioning of items and tests.
Journal of Educational Measurement, 34(3), 253-272. • Raju, N. S., Bilgic, R., Edwards, J. E., & Fleer, P. F. (1997). Methodology review: Estimation of population validity and cross-validity, and the use of equal weights in prediction.
Applied Psychological Measurement, 21(4), 291-305. • Oshima, T. C., Raju, N. S., Flowers, C. P., & Slinde, J. A. (1998). Differential bundle functioning using the DFIT framework: Procedures for identifying possible sources of differential functioning.
Applied Measurement in Education, 11(4), 353-369. • Maurer, T. J., Raju, N. S., & Collins, W. C. (1998). Peer and subordinate performance appraisal measurement equivalence.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(5), 693-702. • Raju, N. S., Anselmi, T. V., Goodman, J. S., & Thomas, A. (1998). The effect if correlated artifacts and true validity on the accuracy of parameter estimation in validity generalization.
Personnel Psychology, 51(2), 453-465. • Raju, N. S., Bilgic, R., Edwards, J. E., & Fleer, P. F. (1999). Accuracy of population validity and cross-validity estimation: An empirical comparison of formula-based, traditional empirical, and equal weights procedures.
Applied Psychological Measurement, 23(2), 99-115. • Flowers, C. P., Oshima, T. C., & Raju, N. S. (1999). A description and demonstration of the polytomous-DFIT framework.
Applied Psychological Measurement, 23(4), 309-326. • Collins, W. C., Raju, N. S., & Edwards, J. E. (2000). Assessing differential functioning in a satisfaction scale.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 451-461. • Cabrera, E. F., & Raju, N. S. (2001). Utility analysis: Current trends and future directions.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9(1-2), 92-102. • Raju, N. S., Laffitte, L. J., & Byrne, B. M. (2002). Measurement equivalence: A comparison of methods based on confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 517-529. • Barr, M. A., & Raju, N. S. (2003). IRT-based assessments of rater effects in multiple-source feedback instruments.
Organizational Research Methods, 6(1), 15-43. • Raju, N. S., & Brand, P. A. (2003). Determining the significance of correlations corrected for unreliability and range restriction.
Applied Psychological Measurement, 27(1), 52-71. • Clemans, W. V., Lunneborg, C. E., & Raju, N. S. (2004). Professor paul horst's legacy: A differential prediction model for effective guidance in course selection.
Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 23(3), 23-30. • Miner, J. B., & Raju, N. S. (2004). Risk propensity differences between managers and entrepreneurs and between low- and high-growth entrepreneurs: A reply in a more conservative vein.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 3-13. • Thomas, A., & Raju, N. S. (2004). An evaluation of James et al.'s (1992) VG estimation procedure when artifacts and true validity are correlated.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12(4), 299-311. • Raju, N. S., & Oshima, T. C. (2005). Two prophecy formulas for assessing the reliability of item response theory-based ability estimates.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65(3), 361-375. • Henry, M. S., & Raju, N. S. (2006). The effects of trailed and situational impression management on a personality test: An empirical analysis.
Psychology Science. Special Issue: Considering response distortion in personality measurement for industrial, work and organizational psychology research and practice, 48(3), 247-267. • Oshima, T. C., Raju, N. S., & Nanda, A. O. (2006). A new method for assessing the statistical significance in the differential functioning of items and tests (DFIT) framework.
Journal of Educational Measurement, 43(1), 1-17. • Price, L. R., Raju, N., Lurie, A., Wilkins, C., & Zhu, J. (2006). Conditional standard errors of measurement for composite scores on the wechsler preschool and primary scale of intelligence-third edition.
Psychological Reports, 98(1), 237-252. • Raju, N. S., Lezotte, D. V., Fearing, B. K., & Oshima, T. C. (2006). A note on correlations corrected for unreliability and range restriction.
Applied Psychological Measurement, 30(2), 145-149. • Raju, N. S., Price, L. R., Oshima, T. C., & Nering, M. L. (2007). Standardized conditional SEM: A case for conditional reliability.
Applied Psychological Measurement, 31(3), 169-180. • Schmidt, F. L., & Raju, N. S. (2007). Updating meta-analytic research findings: Bayesian approaches versus the medical model.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 297-308. • McCarty, F. A., Oshima, T. C., & Raju, N. S. (2007). Identifying possible sources of differential functioning using differential bundle functioning with polytomously scored data.
Applied Measurement in Education, 20(2), 205-225. ==References ==