Scientific and Social Significance of Assessing Individual Differences: “Sinking Shafts at a Few Critical Points”

Abstract

This chapter reviews empirical findings on the importance of assessing individual differences in human behavior. Traditional dimensions of human abilities, personality, and vocational interests play critical roles in structuring a variety of important behaviors and outcomes (e.g. achieved socioeconomic status, educational choices, work performance, delinquency, health risk behaviors, and income). In the review of their importance, the construct of general intelligence is featured, but attributes that routinely add incremental validity to cognitive assessments are also discussed. Recent experimental and methodological advances for better understanding how these dimensions may contribute to other psychological frameworks are reviewed, as are ways for determining their scientific significance within domains where they are not routinely assessed. Finally, some noteworthy models are outlined that highlight the importance of assessing relatively distinct classes of individual-differences attributes simultaneously. For understanding fully complex human phenomena such as crime, eminence, and educational-vocational development, such a multifaceted approach is likely to be the most productive.

An examination of psychometric bias due to retesting on cognitive ability tests in selection settings.

“…Likewise, if this argument has merit, we would expect the retest scores to yield a higher predictive validity for g-loaded criteria (i.e., criterion measures that would load heavily on the g factor if included in a factor analysis of ability scales) than the initial test scores, as the retest scores are less influenced by construct-irrelevant factors and are presumably better measures of g. Similarly, by extension to the between-persons comparison, we would expect to see higher predictive validities for the scores from the group who did not go on to retest than for the initial scores from the group who did go on to retest. Explanation 3 stems from Lubinski's (2000) suggestion that practice builds up "nonerror uniqueness" components of ability tests-factors such as method-specific knowledge 1 (aka, testwiseness), specific item content knowledge, or narrow skills unique to the item content (e.g., memorization of numbers). That is, in terms of Carroll's (1993) three-stratum model of abilities, Explanation 3 posits that practice due to retesting increases the test-specific skills residing in the lowest level of the hierarchy of cognitive abilities (Jensen, 1998, chapter 10;Te Nijenhuis, van Vianen, & van der Flier, 2007).…”

Worklife Across the Lifespan

“…Moreover, the quote reflects counseling psychology's emphasis on the individuality of each student and client. The foundation of individual difference research lies in the understanding that people differ in magnitude of any characteristic they possess (Dawis, 2005) and that the range is five to six standard deviations or more (Dawis, 2005;Lubinski, 2000) compared to the much smaller (most often less than Cohen's d of .5) effect size of group differences (e.g., sex differences and racial and ethnic differences).…”

“…Not surprisingly, individual differences, especially interests and personality traits, repeatedly emerged as salient predictors of vocational outcomes like educational aspirations, career choice, affective commitment in the job, job satisfaction, job performance, intentions to quit, CWBs, career success, career satisfaction, and mental health outcomes (e.g., Lubinski, 2000). A discussion of individual differences needs to start with a foundation in heritability.…”

Multiple Personality Domains in Relation to Occupational Choice and Performance Among Established Teachers

“…As part of this effort, a distinction has been drawn between satisfaction (fulfillment) and satisfactoriness (performance) as behavioral outcomes (Dawis & Lofquist, 1984;Hogan & Blake;Lubinski, 2000;Lubinski & Benbow, 2000;Mount, Barrick, & Ryan, 2003). One aspect of satisfaction is the fulfillment anticipated in choosing a particular career line or occupation.…”

“…21). In the present interpretation, Phase 1 entails comparing the self's perceived abilities and personality characteristics to perceived occupational requirements, here called "trait matching" (e.g., Holland, 1997;Lubinski, 2000;Prince & Heiser, 2000, Ryan & Kristof-Brown, 2003Savickas & Spokane, 1999;Waller et al, 1995). To illustrate, having a strong interest in serving others (e.g., "I like working with young children") would contribute to trait matching (Waller et al), perhaps resulting in choice of an occupation emphasizing social service, such as teaching (Holland, 1997).…”