Abstract
A series of papers showing that measures of general cognitive ability predicted performance on the job and in training and that measures of specific cognitive abilities rarely made an incremental contribution to prediction led to a premature decline in research on the roles of specific abilities in the workplace. Lessons learned from this research include the importance of choosing the right general cognitive measures and variables, the relative roles of prediction vs. understanding and the need for a wide range of criteria when evaluating the contribution of specific skills such as complex problem solving. In particular, research published since the “not much more than g” era suggests that distinguishing between fluid and crystallized intelligence is important for understanding the development and the contribution of complex problem solving.
Highlights
Many jobs require incumbents to attain skills in solving problems that are nonroutine and dynamic, and that require both the acquisition and application of new knowledge
Solving (CPS) skills are likely to become an increasingly important determinant of job performance and occupational success [1], There is a long history of research on the cognitive underpinnings of job performance, and this research suggests that identifying a distinct role for specific skills such as complex problem solving is important, but that it is made substantially more difficult as a result of the hierarchical structure of human cognitive abilities
The question of whether measures of specific cognitive ability contributed anything meaningful to the prediction of performance on the job or performance in training once measures of general mental ability were taken into account appeared to be settled, and a consensus developed that there was little value in using specific ability measures in contexts where more general measures were available
Summary
Many jobs require incumbents to attain skills in solving problems that are nonroutine and dynamic, and that require both the acquisition and application of new knowledge. There is considerable evidence that the criterion-related validity of cognitive tests, including those that vary widely in content, does not vary greatly across jobs [3,4,5,7,10,11]. This pattern of results is often taken as evidence that specific abilities and skills make only a minor contribution to the prediction of performance in complex tasks and jobs once general cognitive abilities are taken into account. Hunter [11] has argued that the evidence supports an even stronger version of this argument, claiming that it is general ability and not specific abilities that predict performance
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
