There Are More Things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, Than DGF

Hanges, Paul J.; Scherbaum, Charles A.; Reeve, Charlie L.

doi:10.1017/iop.2015.65

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The above findings signify that a growing contingent of researchers are reconsidering the validity of specific abilities for cognitive ability assessment in the workplace ( Hanges et al 2015 ; Kell and Lang 2017 , 2018 ; Nye et al 2022 ; Oswald 2019 ; Reeve et al 2015 ; Schneider and McGrew 2019 ; Wee et al 2015 ; Wee 2018 ). This renewed interest in specific abilities in organizational research and practice creates opportunities to leverage modern cognitive ability research from other fields, such as the work on ability tilt.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…Although originally focused on both general and specific cognitive abilities (e.g., Fleishman 1975 ; Fleishman et al 1984 ), research gravitated to a position emphasizing that general cognitive ability ( g ) is the only ability from the cognitive domain that is needed to predict job performance ( Ree et al 1994 , 2015 ; Schmidt and Hunter 1998 ; Schmidt 2002 ). However, recent work informed by modern cognitive ability theories and analytical techniques suggests that specific cognitive abilities contribute to the prediction of job performance and may, in some cases, offer greater predictive power than g ( Hanges et al 2015 ; Kell and Lang 2017 , 2018 ; Lang et al 2010 ; Mount et al 2008 ; Nye et al 2020 , 2022 ; Reeve et al 2015 ; Wee et al 2014 ; Viswesvaran and Ones 2002 ; Wiernik et al 2015 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Exploring the Relationship between Cognitive Ability Tilt and Job Performance

Kato

Scherbaum

2023

J. Intell.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most of the work examining the relationship between intelligence and job performance has conceptualized intelligence as g. Recent findings, however, have supported the claim that more specific factors of intelligence contribute to the prediction of job performance. The present study builds upon prior work on specific cognitive abilities by investigating the relationship between ability tilt, a measure representing differential strength between two specific abilities, and job performance. It was hypothesized that ability tilt would differentially relate to job performance based on whether or not the tilt matched the ability requirements of the job, and that ability tilt would provide incremental validity over g and specific abilities for predicting performance when the tilt matched job requirements. Hypotheses were tested using a large sample from the General Aptitude Test Battery (GATB) database. Ability tilt related with job performance in the expected direction for 27 of the 36 tilt-job combinations examined, with a mean effect size of .04 when the tilt matched job requirements. The mean incremental validities for ability tilt were .007 over g and .003 over g and specific abilities, and, on average, tilt explained 7.1% of the total variance in job performance. The results provide limited evidence that ability tilt may be a useful predictor in addition to ability level, and contribute to our understanding of the role of specific abilities in the workplace.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the Relationship between Cognitive Ability Tilt and Job Performance

Kato

Scherbaum

2023

J. Intell.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Jackson, Putka and Teoh [19] pointed out that when the data are multifaceted (e.g., tests differ not only in content but in terms of their source (e.g., self-ratings vs. ratings from others) or their mode of measurement), the determination of general factors can be more complex, and that the interpretation of scores on an optimal composite of all tests as indicating a general factor cannot always be assumed. The likelihood of finding a strong general factor underlying a set of cognitive tests can also depend on the methods used to analyze test data [20]. Nevertheless, it is clear that scores on measures of any specific cognitive ability or skill will reflect both general and specific factors.…”

Section: The Hierarchical Structure Of Cognitive Abilitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Can We Learn from “Not Much More than g”?

Murphy

2017

J. Intell.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A series of papers showing that measures of general cognitive ability predicted performance on the job and in training and that measures of specific cognitive abilities rarely made an incremental contribution to prediction led to a premature decline in research on the roles of specific abilities in the workplace. Lessons learned from this research include the importance of choosing the right general cognitive measures and variables, the relative roles of prediction vs. understanding and the need for a wide range of criteria when evaluating the contribution of specific skills such as complex problem solving. In particular, research published since the "not much more than g" era suggests that distinguishing between fluid and crystallized intelligence is important for understanding the development and the contribution of complex problem solving.

show abstract

There Are More Things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, Than DGF

Abstract: meta-analysis of the predictive validity of the Graduate Record Examinations: Implications for graduate student selection and performance.

Cited by 2 publications

References 39 publications

Exploring the Relationship between Cognitive Ability Tilt and Job Performance

Exploring the Relationship between Cognitive Ability Tilt and Job Performance

What Can We Learn from “Not Much More than g”?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About