Range restriction is a common problem in personnel selection and other contexts in applied psychology. For many years researchers have used corrections that assume range restriction was direct, even when it was known that range restriction was indirect. Hunter, Schmidt, and Le (2006) proposed a new correction for cases of indirect range restriction that greatly increases its potential usefulness due to its reduced information requirements compared to alternatives. The current study examines the applicability of Hunter et al.’s correction to settings where its assumed structural model is violated by including the measures that are to be involved in corrections in the original selection composite. We conclude that Hunter et al.’s correction should generally be preferred when compared to its common alternative, Thorndike's Case II correction for direct range restriction. However, this is due to the likely violation of one of the other assumptions of the Hunter et al. correction in most applied settings. Correction mechanisms and practical implications are discussed.