The extension of statistical analysis by Cernovsky and Litman was based on erroneous assumptions about the interpretation of variance and correlation statistics, and, therefore, their criticism of the results of the research was unwarranted. There is statistical justification for risk avoidance behavior that is based on the identification of certain individual characteristics such as age, sex and other variables. Cernovsky and Litman's conclusions do not follow from their analyses.
Small correlations can have large impacts.
I have transformed some of their examples from medical procedures and personnel selection into those concerned with criminal justice. Thus, in selection for parole, a validity coefficient of 0.40 should not be squared to mean that only 16 percent of the variance of recidivism is accounted for. Levin holds that the taking of differential precautions is both logically and morally justified. It is Cernovsky and Litman's interpretation of this study that is in error and I refer the reader to tables 2 and 5 in Beals et al. References Beals, K.L., C.L. Smith, and S.M. Dodd 1984 Brain size, cranial morphology, climate, and time machines.