When I get a chance I will pick a couple of random countries and compare RofP data to the Global Terrorism Database to see if the numbers match.

You now have three measures of roughly the same outcome, Islamic terrorism. You report their intercorrelations early on and I was surprised that you did not factor analyze them to produce a single measure that should have less idiosyncratic variance.

while military intervention in the Middle East has a fairly strong relationship with the first (d = 0.69–1.63, r = .40; β = 0.39–0.45) and second measure (d = 0.53–1.46, r = .41; β = 0.28– 0.46), but a less consistent relationship with the third (d = 0.39–2.37, r = .30; β = 0.33–0.52).

Both hypotheses received some support from the analyses. Percentage of Muslims in the population (logged) had a strong association with the first and third measures of terrorist threat, but a somewhat weaker association with the second. Military intervention in the Middle East has a fairly strong relationship with the first and second measure, but a less consistent relationship with the third: although all three measures of military intervention were significant in the multiple regression models, only part of anti-ISIS military coalition had significant bivariate association with log of 1 + number of arrests for religious terrorism.

By the end of World War 11, hundreds of validation studies had been conducted to determine the extent to which ability tests predict performance on different jobs. When these studies were compiled by Ghiselli (1966),he found marked variation in validity coefficients even across sets of studies in which very similar tests were used to predict performance on seemingly similarjobs. Ghiselli concluded that most of this variance was apparently due to specific factors that determined the nature of job performance in particular settings. This situational specificity hypothesis of employment test validities predated Ghiselli’s research; the effect of Ghiselli’s findings was to provide seemingly strong support for that hypothesis.

The situational specificity hypothesis, as it has existed historically, makes two predictions, one well known and obvious and one that is less well known and more subtle. The well known and obvious prediction is that there will be substantial variation in validities across settings and organizations for the same and similar tests and jobs and this variation will be real. Research in validity generalization has challenged this prediction by demonstrating that most, and in many cases all, of the variance in validity coefficients across studies is due to statistical and measurement artifacts, principally sampling error. The alternative hypothesis tested has been that situational specificity of job performance is either nonexistent or has little or no effect on validity coefficients of ability tests used in employment, and that, as a consequence, employment test validities are generalizable. In recent years, research evidence has accumulated indicating that the validities of numerous employment selection procedures are indeed generalizable across settings, organizations. and time periods. For summaries of the research on validity generalization, see Schmidt and Hunter (1981), Hunter and Schmidt ( 1983), and Linn and Dunbar (1982)

it might be worth also predicting the number of attacks as a different measure of risk.

If the casualties per capita measure is the most valid, it might be best to discuss that measure first.

I'm not sure why the interpolated 2015 estimate for percentage Muslim is used.

Page 7 of the manuscript indicates that there are four of 26 EU countries identified as part of the anti-ISIS military coalition, but the Excel file indicates five