Introduction to the Special Issue: Role of General Mental Ability in Industrial, Work, and Organizational Psychology (original) (raw)
Related papers
Human Performance, 2002
General Mental Ability (GMA) has empirical evidence supporting it as a strong predictor of job performance. However, there are agreements and disagreements about the role of GMA in Industrial, Work, and Organizational (IWO) psychology. Some embrace it enthusiastically; some tolerate it; some spend their entire careers looking for ways to minimize the effects of GMA in personnel selection; and, finally, some revile and loath the very concept. The reasons for the divergence vary, and in this special issue of Human Performance we brought together leading IWO psychologists and researchers to discuss the potential role of GMA in personnel selection. In this summary, we synthesize, around eight themes, the main points of agreement and disagreements across the contributing authors. The major themes and questions are: (a) predictive value of GMA for real-life outcomes and work behaviors, (b) predictive value of GMA versus specific abilities, (c) the consequences of the criterion problem for GMA validities, (d) is utility evidence for GMA convincing?, (e) are the negative reactions to GMA tests a result of group differences?, (f) is theoretical knowledge of GMA adequate?, (g) is there promise in new methods of testing for GMA?, and (h) what is the current status of non-GMA predictors as substitutes or supplements to GMA?
The SAGE handbook of industrial, work and organizational psychology , 2018
Cognitive ability and personality are the two most important domains of individual differences in the world of work. The main objectives of this chapter are twofold. First it aims to provide industrial, work and organizational (IWO) researchers and practitioners with updated, contemporary taxonomies of cognitive abilities and personality attributes. Second, it compiles and makes available a vast catalog of measures for the constructs included in the cognitive ability and personality taxonomies. The taxonomies and constructs presented in the chapter should help organize research, identify new hypotheses, and suggest new processes for how traits and measures relate to each other and outcomes. The compendia we presented should help IWO psychologists understand and leverage measures well-suited to the constructs they intend to assess. The authors' hope that the updated, open taxonomies presented in this chapter will be stable enough for IWO psychologists to state and apply what they know; flexible enough to accommodate what they learn; independent of any specific theory about how cognitive abilities and personality characteristics develop, yet reflective of empirical findings; compatible with Cattell-Horn-Carroll and Hierarchical Five Factor models, but not slaves to them; specific enough for precise communication, but general enough to reflect consensual conclusions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
Personnel Psychology, 2010
The nested-factors model is a well-established structural model of cognitive abilities in cognitive ability research but has not yet been used to investigate the role of cognitive abilities in job performance. Core assumptions of the nested-factors model are that a broad general mental ability (GMA) exists besides narrower abilities and that this GMA differs from the narrower cognitive abilities in breadth but not in subordination. The authors of this article propose that a recently emerging statistical technique-relative importance analysis-corresponds to the assumptions of the nested-factors model. To empirically study the implications of using the nested-factors model, the authors applied relative importance analysis to a meta-analytic matrix linking measures of 7 narrower cognitive abilities from an established ability taxonomy (Thurstone's primary mental abilities), GMA, and job performance. Results revealed that GMA accounted for 10.9% to 28.6% of the total variance explained in job performance and that GMA was not consistently the most important predictor. The discussion focuses on potential theoretical, methodological, and practical implications of the nested-factors model for personnel psychology. Researchers have accumulated considerable evidence that cognitive abilities are highly successful predictors of job performance (Bertua,
I-O Psychology and Progressive Research Programs on Intelligence
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2012
Scherbaum, Goldstein, Yusko, Ryan, and Hanges' (2012) conclusions and suggestions are partly based on two observations from extant research on intelligence in industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology. The first observation is that g is overwhelmingly more important in job performance than narrower cognitive abilities. The second observation is that g leads to higher flexibility in adapting to changes. Recent work suggests that both observations are closely linked to the use of theoretical assumptions and specific methods that are not necessarily superior to alternative assumptions and methods that lead to different conclusions (Lang & Bliese, 2009; Lang, Kersting, Hülsheger, & Lang, 2010). We suggest that studying these alternative perspectives is a promising starting point for progressive research programs on intelligence in the context of I-O psychology. g, Narrower Cognitive Abilities, and Job Performance Scherbaum et al. review work suggesting that narrower cognitive abilities do not have much incremental validity over g and propose that this finding has hampered the progress of the field. In their view, the future lies in using innovative new measurement Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jonas W. B. Lang.
The Academy of …, 2007
We respond to the three comments on our recent article in the August issue of Academy of Management Perspectives , which highlights the importance of methodological advances in human resource research. By concentrating on tangential aspects of our article, these comments miss its central points. Further, the comments (by Paul Osterman, Neal Schmitt, and Robert M. Hauser) either involve quibbles and misinterpretations of research evidence or are downright erroneous. We clarify the misunderstandings by providing evidence that is well-established through decades of research in the area of industrial/organizational psychology. By doing so, we re-emphasize that (a) the utility and validity of general mental ability are among the most robust findings in psychological research, (b) such findings were realized by the development of the meta-analysis method, and most important, (c) organizations can benefit greatly by utilizing findings obtained from meta-analysis.
Intelligence 2.0: Reestablishing a Research Program on g in I-O Psychology
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2012
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 . 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., , 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.
Specific Abilities in the Workplace: More Important Than g?
Journal of Intelligence
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.
General Cognitive Ability Predicts Job Performance
A study investigated the roles of general ability and specific abilities as predictors of several job performance criteria for Air Force enlistees in eight jobs. Subjects were 1,545 Air Force enlistees entering from 1984 through 1988 who had tested with the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) parallel forms 11, 12, or 13. Subjects had completed both basic military training and technical training and were for the most part working in their first term of enlistment. They were mostly white, male, 17 to 23 years old, high school or better graduates, with an average job tenure of about 28 months. General cognitive ability and specific abilities (the interaction of general ability and experience) were defined by scores on the first and subsequent principal components of the enlistment and selection and classification test, the ASVAB. Multiple regression analyses conducted in correlation matrices corrected for range restriction revealed that general ability was the best predictor of all criterion measures and that specific abilities added a statistically significant but practically small amount to predictive efficiency. For classification of large numbers of applications into large numbers of jobs, the incremental prediction due to specific abilities could be useful. (Contains 47 references.) (YLB)
Competing tasks as measures of intelligence and predictors of job performance
2012
This series of studies investigated a new measure of cognitive ability, the Multi-Tasks test, its place within the structure of intelligence and its usefulness in predicting job performance. The Multi-Tasks test employed a competing task methodology, being the simultaneous performance of two cognitive tasks, which has been shown to have a significant relationship with intelligence and job performance, particularly for complex jobs. The competing tasks methodology has a long history in psychology research and has recently experienced a resurgence of interest as technological advances (e.g., the Internet) have made it easier to administer these measures within the workplace. In the pilot study (Part A of Study 1) the means, reliability and demographic group differences of the measure were investigated. In Part B of Study 1 and Studies 2 and 3, the reliability and predictive validity of the test was compared to measures of general mental ability (crystallized and fluid intelligence) which have been widely used in personnel selection. Crystallized intelligence measures are language based and influenced by culture and education, whereas fluid intelligence tasks typically draw on non-verbal reasoning and are unaffected by education. These measures feature prominently in the Cattell-Horn-Carroll Theory of Cognitive Abilities, which forms the theoretical basis for these studies. In Study 2 and Study 3, additional cognitive measures were added to further elucidate the place of Multi-Tasks within the intelligence model, including a measure of short-term memory (Gsm in the CHC Theory). Previous research shows short-term memory and a related concept working memory, to be important in performance on the Multi-Tasks test. Further, the reliability and predictive validity of Multi-Tasks was compared to a personality measure (the Big Five model of personality) in Study 2, which is also widely used in job selection. In all studies the Multi-Tasks test had high reliability, and it was found to be a more reliable measure than the general mental ability measures in Study 1 (Part B), Study 2 and