Using the International Cognitive Ability Resource as an open source tool to explore individual differences in cognitive ability

Dworak, Elizabeth M.; Revelle, William; Doebler, Philipp; Condon, David M

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2020.109906

Cited by 51 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 70 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, studies benefitted from increasing statistical power and stability of estimated correlations (Schönbrodt and Perugini 2013). In addition, intelligence tests became more available to be applied in online studies, with the most prevalent example of the International Cognitive Ability Resource (ICAR; Condon and Revelle 2014;Dworak et al 2021). Taking all these factors into consideration, an update seems well justified.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Is Intelligence Test Performance Associated with Creative Achievement? A Meta-Analysis

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a meta-analysis of the links between intelligence test scores and creative achievement. A three-level meta-analysis of 117 correlation coefficients from 30 studies found a correlation of r = .16 (95% CI: .12, .19), closely mirroring previous meta-analytic findings. The estimated effects were stronger for overall creative achievement and achievement in scientific domains than for correlations between intelligence scores and creative achievement in the arts and everyday creativity. No signs of publication bias were found. We discuss theoretical implications and provide recommendations for future studies.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Is Intelligence Test Performance Associated with Creative Achievement? A Meta-Analysis

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is worth noting that the g -factor, despite being touted as the “holy grail” of human abilities (see McGrew 2009 ), may fail to meet such expectations in the context of the studies included in this review. For example, in the study by Rowe ( 2019 ), 85 participants completed the ICAR-16, an IQ test containing four subtests (matrix reasoning, letter-number reasoning, verbal reasoning, and 3D rotation), and established as a part of a broader open-science project by the International Cognitive Ability Resource (ICAR) team (Condon and Revelle 2014 ; Dworak et al 2020 ). The resulting single-factor model (i.e., the g -factor model) obtained from the CFA displayed excellent model fit ( χ 2 (2) = 0.932, CFI = 1.0, TLI = 1.11, RMSEA = .00, p = .628) and yet the AVE was 30% which, as is the case with the AVE values obtained from the c -factor analyses in Table 2 , falls well below the 50% recommended cutoff.…”

Section: Quantitative Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

g versus c: comparing individual and collective intelligence across two meta-analyses

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Collective intelligence (CI) is said to manifest in a group’s domain general mental ability. It can be measured across a battery of group IQ tests and statistically reduced to a latent factor called the “c-factor.” Advocates have found the c-factor predicts group performance better than individual IQ. We test this claim by meta-analyzing correlations between the c-factor and nine group performance criterion tasks generated by eight independent samples (N = 857 groups). Results indicated a moderate correlation, r, of .26 (95% CI .10, .40). All but four studies comprising five independent samples (N = 366 groups) failed to control for the intelligence of individual members using individual IQ scores or their statistically reduced equivalent (i.e., the g-factor). A meta-analysis of this subset of studies found the average IQ of the groups’ members had little to no correlation with group performance (r = .06, 95% CI −.08, .20). Around 80% of studies did not have enough statistical power to reliably detect correlations between the primary predictor variables and the criterion tasks. Though some of our findings are consistent with claims that a general factor of group performance may exist and relate positively to group performance, limitations suggest alternative explanations cannot be dismissed. We caution against prematurely embracing notions of the c-factor unless it can be independently and robustly replicated and demonstrated to be incrementally valid beyond the g-factor in group performance contexts.

show abstract

“…Although one reviewer suggested that to compare the ICAR with the Stanford-Binet is analogous to comparing a cheap rip-off to a Versace handbag, we view the utility of ICAR in terms of the wide range of applications in just the past few years. ICAR measures of cognitive ability have already been used in many studies and publications, with various real-world criteria and different item types (e.g., the 79 studies reviewed by Dworak, Revelle, Doebler, & Condon, 2020). Such projects include an online survey that utilized 35 verbal-reasoning and three-dimensional-rotation items to provide participant feedback and evaluate individual differences in a nationwide sample (Van Der Krieke et al, 2016).…”

Section: Applications Of Icarmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive Ability in Everyday Life: The Utility of Open-Source Measures

Revelle¹,

Dworak²,

Condon

2020

Curr Dir Psychol Sci

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The measurement of individual differences in cognitive ability has a long and important history in psychology, but it has been impeded by the proprietary nature of most assessment measures. With the development of validated open-source measures of ability (collected in the International Cognitive Ability Resource, or ICAR, available at ICAR-project.com ), it is now possible for many researchers to assess ability in large surveys or small, lab-based studies without the expenses associated with proprietary measures. We review the history of ability measurement and discuss how the growing set of items included in ICAR allows ability assessments to be more generally available to all researchers.

show abstract

Using the International Cognitive Ability Resource as an open source tool to explore individual differences in cognitive ability

Cited by 51 publications

References 70 publications

How Is Intelligence Test Performance Associated with Creative Achievement? A Meta-Analysis

How Is Intelligence Test Performance Associated with Creative Achievement? A Meta-Analysis

g versus c: comparing individual and collective intelligence across two meta-analyses

Cognitive Ability in Everyday Life: The Utility of Open-Source Measures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About