Survey of opinions on the primacy of g and social consequences of ability testing: A comparison of expert and non-expert views

Manifestations of intelligence: Expanding the measurement space to reconsider specific cognitive abilities

“…Our main point, and one that has been noted elsewhere (e.g., Lievens & Reeve, 2012;Reeve & Charles, 2008;Scherbaum et al, 2012), is that the treatment of "intelligence" in HR and I-O psychology lags far behind the science of mental abilities. Thus, it is not a surprise that many of the measures that have been developed to capture the manifestations of the complex skills and competencies required for success in today's workplace are not based on the science and theory of mental abilities.…”

“…This evidence is large, voluminous and based on data from around the globe. Unfortunately, it has been noted and empirically confirmed (e.g., Reeve & Charles, 2008) that those in HR and I-O psychology, on average, appear to be unaware of this literature.…”

“…In the case of cognitive abilities, the empirical reality and the importance of the ability constructs have been well documented for more than 100 years. Going back to the early 1900s, a broad array of psychometric, biological, and behavioral genetic evidence (e.g., see Carroll, 1993;Jensen, 1998) has given rise to a broad consensus among experts that cognitive abilities are real psychological constructs (Gottfredson, 1997a;Reeve & Charles, 2008;Snyderman & Rothman, 1987), that they have a significant and meaningful influence on important real-world outcomes (e.g. Batty et al, 2008;Gottfredson, 1997Gottfredson, , 2004Kuncel et al, 2004;Reeve, 2009;Schmidt & Hunter, 1998), that they have a basis in human biology and physiology (Gottfredson, 1997;Deary, 2009 [special issues of Intelligence]; Lubinski, 2004 [special section of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology]) and that they are consistent with predictions from evolutionary psychology (Kanazawa, 2004;Kanazawa, 2010;Reeve, Lyerly, & Peach, 2013).…”

“…I-O and HR research has taken an extreme stance against specific cognitive abilities, yet practitioners have a pressing need for measures of specific abilities. At the same time, research shows that HR and I-O scholars have failed to maintain a current understanding of the domain of intelligence (e.g., Reeve & Charles, 2008). The result is HR and I-O research fails to contribute to workplace assessments, and workplace assessments fail to take advantage of well-developed models of intellectual differences that exist in the basic and differential literatures.…”

Identifying g: A review of current factor analytic practices in the science of mental abilities

“…First, we note the central role g appears to play in a wide range of educational, occupational, and social outcomes. Second, we note recent evidence (Reeve & Charles, 2008) showing expert consensus for the idea that, although there is certainly more to intelligence than just g, g is the single most important ability determinant of cognitivelyloaded performances. Third, empirical evidence confirms that it is the g-saturation of ability indicators that is generally responsible for the broad criterion-related validity of ability tests (Jensen, 1986), whereas specific ability factors typically only predict narrow, content specific components of criterion variance (e.g., Reeve, 2004).…”