Validity of measures of cognitive processes and general ability for learning and performance on highly complex computerized tutors: Is the g factor of intelligence even more general?

Roznowski, Mary; Dickter, David N.; Sehee, Hong; Sawin, Linda L.; Shute, Valerie J.

doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.6.940

Cited by 14 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 70 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…So, equivalence research per definition does not take the opportunity to improve the quality of assessment. Roznowski et al (2000) offered an illustration of the use of cognitive processing measures that explicitly build on the possibilities of computerization to go beyond the type of measurement possible with paper-and-pencil testing and show incremental validity over a general cognitive measure in predicting training performance.…”

Section: Improved Administrative Ease With Which Selection Systems Camentioning

confidence: 99%

Personnel Selection

Sackett

Lievens

2008

Annu. Rev. Psychol.

275

198

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We review developments in personnel selection since the previous review by Hough & Oswald (2000) in the Annual Review of Psychology. We organize the review around a taxonomic structure of possible bases for improved selection, which includes (a) better understanding of the criterion domain and criterion measurement, (b) improved measurement of existing predictor methods or constructs, (c) identification and measurement of new predictor methods or constructs, (d) improved identification of features that moderate or mediate predictor-criterion relationships, (e) clearer understanding of the relationship between predictors or between predictors and criteria (e.g., via meta-analytic synthesis), (f) identification and prediction of new outcome variables, (g) improved ability to determine how well we predict the outcomes of interest, (h) improved understanding of subgroup differences, fairness, bias, and the legal defensibility, (i) improved administrative ease with which selection systems can be used, (j) improved insight into applicant reactions, and (k) improved decision-maker acceptance of selection systems.

show abstract

Section: Improved Administrative Ease With Which Selection Systems Camentioning

confidence: 99%

Personnel Selection

Sackett

Lievens

2008

Annu. Rev. Psychol.

275

198

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, Ree and Carretta (1994) factor analyzed the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) in a large sample of US high-school and college-age individuals, essentially replicating Vernon's (1950) hierarchical structure, with g as the general factor and Cognitive Speed, Verbal/Numerical and Technical Skills factors beneath. When more diverse batteries are factor analyzed, for example, batteries that contain additional measures of cognitive processes, somewhat different hierarchical structures emerge, although a general ability factor is at the apex (e.g., Roznowski, Dickter, Hong, Sawin and Shute 2000). We summarize the existing literature on group-mean differences at the level of g and at levels that are narrower theoretically but are practically useful (and used in practice) in employment testing.…”

Section: Cognitive Abilitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determinants, Detection and Amelioration of Adverse Impact in Personnel Selection Procedures: Issues, Evidence and Lessons Learned

Hough¹,

Oswald²,

Ployhart³

2001

Int J Selection Assessment

375

321

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mean subgroup (gender, ethnic/cultural, and age) differences are summarized across studies for several predictor domains ± cognitive ability, personality and physical ability ± at both broadly and more narrowly defined construct levels, with some surprising results. Research clearly indicates that the setting, the sample, the construct and the level of construct specificity can all, either individually or in combination, moderate the magnitude of differences between groups. Employers using tests in employment settings need to assess accurately the requirements of work. When the exact nature of the work is specified, the appropriate predictors may or may not have adverse impact against some groups. The possible causes and remedies for adverse impact (measurement method, culture, test coaching, test-taker perceptions, stereotype threat and criterion conceptualization) are also summarized. Each of these factors can contribute to subgroup differences, and some appear to contribute significantly to subgroup differences on cognitive ability tests, where Black±White mean differences are most pronounced. Statistical methods for detecting differential prediction, test fairness and construct equivalence are described and evaluated, as are statistical/mathematical strategies for reducing adverse impact (test-score banding and predictor/criterion weighting strategies).

show abstract

“…educational attainment) and on career choices (Melamed, 1996a). Furthermore, general mental ability relates to job performance (Ree, Earles, & Teachout, 1994;Roznowski, Dickter, Hong, Sawin, & Shute, 2000); and performance in the various jobs undertaken in the course of the career must also influence extrinsic career success. Indeed, Judge et al (1999) identified a positive relationship between general mental ability and extrinsic career success.…”

Section: Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The relationship between disposition and career success: A British study

Bozionelos

2004

J Occupat & Organ Psyc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The relationship of the Five‐Factor Model of personality and general mental ability with extrinsic and intrinsic career success was investigated in a British sample of 308 white‐collar workers. Extrinsic career success was associated with both experiential variables and dispositional variables, while intrinsic career success was almost exclusively associated with personality traits. General mental ability contributed to eventual, but not to organization‐specific extrinsic career success; and neuroticism reduced both extrinsic career prospects and intrinsic career evaluations, while agreeableness reduced extrinsic career prospects but enhanced intrinsic career evaluations. However, in sharp contrast to hypotheses, conscientiousness primarily and extraversion secondarily were negatively associated with extrinsic career success. The findings are discussed with respect to extant knowledge and the British national cultural context.

show abstract

Validity of measures of cognitive processes and general ability for learning and performance on highly complex computerized tutors: Is the g factor of intelligence even more general?

Cited by 14 publications

References 70 publications

Personnel Selection

Personnel Selection

Determinants, Detection and Amelioration of Adverse Impact in Personnel Selection Procedures: Issues, Evidence and Lessons Learned

The relationship between disposition and career success: A British study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About