General Mental Ability and Selection in Private Sector Organizations: A Commentary

Kehoe, Jerard F.

doi:10.1080/08959285.2002.9668085

Cited by 12 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Those with purely applied concerns will also find relative importance analysis useful, as it represents an additional, practical tool for studying the relative influence of specific and general abilities in the workplace. Some practitioners have indicated tests of specific abilities are preferable to tests of GMA because they often engender more positive applicant reactions, are more legally defensible, and demonstrate smaller group differences, e.g., [120], providing empirical grounding for their usefulness that is critical in applied settings.…”

Section: Appendix A1mentioning

confidence: 99%

Specific Abilities in the Workplace: More Important Than g?

Kell

Lang

2017

J. Intell.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A frequently reported finding is that general mental ability (GMA) is the best single psychological predictor of job performance. Furthermore, specific abilities often add little incremental validity beyond GMA, suggesting that they are not useful for predicting job performance criteria once general intelligence is accounted for. We review these findings and their historical background, along with different approaches to studying the relative influence of g and narrower abilities. Then, we discuss several recent studies that used relative importance analysis to study this relative influence and that found that specific abilities are equally good, and sometimes better, predictors of work performance than GMA. We conclude by discussing the implications of these findings and sketching future areas for research.

show abstract

Section: Appendix A1mentioning

confidence: 99%

Specific Abilities in the Workplace: More Important Than g?

Kell

Lang

2017

J. Intell.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…• Has the nature of the relationship between intelligence and job performance changed as the environment has grown in complexity and the intellectual requirements have hypothetically increased (Boal, 2004;Gatewood et al, 2011;Kehoe, 2002;Pearlman & Barney, 2000)? Early research on prediction demonstrated that greater intelligence is more predictive for more complex jobs compared to less complex jobs (Hunter & Hunter, 1984).…”

Section: Improving the Prediction Of Important Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intelligence 2.0: Reestablishing a Research Program on g in I–O Psychology

Scherbaum

Goldstein

Yusko

et al. 2012

Ind. organ. psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intelligence (i.e., g, general mental ability) is an individual difference that is arguably more important than ever for success in the constantly changing, ever more complex world of business (Boal, 2004; Gatewood, Field, & Barrick, 2011). Although the field of industrial–organizational (I–O) psychology initially made substantial contributions to the study of intelligence and its use in applied settings (e.g., Hunter, 1980; Schmidt & Hunter, 1981), we have done relatively little in recent times about studying the nature of the intelligence construct and its measurement. Instead, we have focused predominately on using intelligence to predict performance outcomes and examine racial subgroup differences on intelligence test scores. Although the field of I–O psychology continues to approach intelligence at a surface level, other fields (e.g., clinical psychology, developmental and educational research, and neuropsychology) have continued to study this construct with greater depth and have consequently made more substantial progress in understanding this critical and complex construct. The purpose of this article is to note this lack of progress in I–O psychology and to challenge our field to mount new research initiatives on this critical construct.

show abstract

“…The results of study 1 are reported in Table 2. We use a test of cognitive ability as a benchmark (see Kehoe, 2002;Schmidt and Hunter, 1998). As noted above, the validity for cognitive ability is .51 and the applicant d for cognitive ability alone is .72.…”

Section: Cognitive Ability and Conscientiousness Compositementioning

confidence: 99%

Forming Composites of Cognitive Ability and Alternative Measures to Predict Job Performance and Reduce Adverse Impact: Corrected Estimates and Realistic Expectations

Potosky

Bobko²,

Roth

2005

Int J Selection & Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although there has been empirical attention paid to the criterion-related validity of predictor composites, there has been much less attention paid to the standardized ethnic group differences associated with these composites. One important area of inquiry in predictor composite research is the influence of adding predictors to a test of general mental ability. The limited empirical literature on this practice is mixed, but the prevailing expectation is that there is likely to be higher validity and less adverse impact. Unfortunately, much of the previous work is limited by the presence of inaccurate validity and standardized ethnic group difference values. In this analysis we formed meta-analytic matrices to more accurately estimate the validity and standardized ethnic group differences of several composites that combine a measure of cognitive ability with measures of conscientiousness, a structured interview, or biodata. While results were somewhat complex, we found that adding alternative predictors does not result in a situation in which validity automatically goes up and adverse impact potential automatically goes down. In fact, the reductions in adverse impact (if any) from adding ''non-cognitive'' predictors were more modest than much of the literature suggests.

show abstract

General Mental Ability and Selection in Private Sector Organizations: A Commentary

Cited by 12 publications

References 0 publications

Specific Abilities in the Workplace: More Important Than g?

Specific Abilities in the Workplace: More Important Than g?

Intelligence 2.0: Reestablishing a Research Program on g in I–O Psychology

Forming Composites of Cognitive Ability and Alternative Measures to Predict Job Performance and Reduce Adverse Impact: Corrected Estimates and Realistic Expectations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About