Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-10T11:39:24.875Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

It takes more than meta-analysis to kill cognitive ability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 August 2023

Konrad Kulikowski Open the ORCID record for Konrad Kulikowski [Opens in a new window]
Konrad Kulikowski*
Affiliation:
Institute of Management, Lodz University of Technology, Lodz, Poland
*
Email: konrad.kulikowski@p.lodz.pl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , September 2023 , pp. 366 - 370
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Berry, C. M., Gruys, M. L., & Sackett, P. R. (2006). Educational attainment as a proxy for cognitive ability in selection: Effects on levels of cognitive ability and adverse impact. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 696–705. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.696 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, M. I., Wai, J., & Chabris, C. F. (2021). Can you ever be too smart for your own good? Comparing linear and nonlinear effects of cognitive ability on life outcomes. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(6), 1337–1359. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620964122 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freund, P. A., & Kasten, N. (2012). How smart do you think you are? A meta-analysis on the validity of self-estimates of cognitive ability. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 296–321. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026556 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gottfredson, L. S. (1997a). Mainstream science on intelligence: An editorial with 52 signatories, history, and bibliography. Intelligence, 24(1), 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-2896(97)90011-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gottfredson, L. S. (1997b). Why g matters: The complexity of everyday life. Intelligence, 24(1), 79–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gottfredson, L. S. (2002). Where and why g matters: Not a mystery. Human Performance, 15(1-2), 25–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-2896(97)90014-3 Google Scholar
Huffcutt, A. I., Culbertson, S. S., & Weyhrauch, W. S. (2014). Moving forward indirectly: Reanalyzing the validity of employment interviews with indirect range restriction methodology. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 22(3), 297–309. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12078 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, W., te Nijenhuis, J., & Bouchard, T. J. Jr (2008). Still just 1 g: Consistent results from five test batteries. Intelligence, 36(1), 81–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2007.06.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joseph, D. L., & Newman, D. A. (2010). Emotional intelligence: An integrative meta-analysis and cascading model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 54–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017286 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Judge, T. A., Klinger, R. L., & Simon, L. S. (2010). Time is on my side: Time, general mental ability, human capital, and extrinsic career success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 92–107. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017594 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kahneman, D. (2012). Thinking, fast and slow. Penguin Random House UK.Google Scholar
Kuncel, N. R., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. (2010). Individual differences as predictors of work, educational, and broad life outcomes. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(4), 331–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.03.042 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lubinski, D. (2004). Introduction to the special section on cognitive abilities: 100 years after Spearman’s (1904) "General intelligence,' objectively determined and measured". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(1), 96–111. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.1.96 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oh, I., Le, H., & Roth, P. L (in press). Revisiting Sackett et al.’s (2022) recommendation against correcting for range restriction in concurrent validation studies. Journal of Applied Psychology. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4308528 Google Scholar
Oh, I. S. (2022). Perfect is the enemy of good enough: Putting the side effects of intelligence testing in perspective. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 15(1), 130–134. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2021.126 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritchie, S. J., & Tucker-Drob, E. M. (2018). How much does education improve intelligence? A meta-analysis. Psychological Science, 29(8), 1358–1369. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618774253 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roth, P. L., & Huffcutt, A. I. (2013). A meta-analysis of interviews and cognitive ability. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 2(4), 157–169. https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000091 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sackett, P. R., Borneman, M. J., & Connelly, B. S. (2008). High stakes testing in higher education and employment: Appraising the evidence for validity and fairness. American Psychologist, 63(4), 215–227. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.4.215 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sackett, P. R., Zhang, C., & Berry, C. M. (2023). Challenging conclusions about predictive bias against Hispanic test takers in personnel selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 108(2), 341–349. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000978 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sackett, P. R., Zhang, C., Berry, C. M., & Lievens, F. (2022). Revisiting meta-analytic estimates of validity in personnel selection: Addressing systematic overcorrection for restriction of range. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107 (11), 2040–2068. Retrieved from https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/lkcsb_research/6894 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sackett, P. R., Zhang, C., Berry, C. M., & Lievens, F. (2023). Revisiting the design of selection systems in light of new findings regarding the validity of widely used predictors. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 16(3), 283–300. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2023.24 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, F. L. (2002). The role of general cognitive ability and job performance: Why there cannot be a debate. Human Performance, 15(1-2), 187–211. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327043HUP1501&02_12 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. (2004). General mental ability in the world of work: occupational attainment and job performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(1), 162–173. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.1.162 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 262–274. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.262 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vrieze, J. (2018, September 18). Meta-analyses were supposed to end scientific debates. Often, they only cause more controversy. Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav4617 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilk, S. L., & Sackett, P. R. (1996). Longitudinal analysis of ability–job complexity fit and job change. Personnel Psychology, 49(4), 937–967. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.tb02455.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar