Role Of General Mental Ability Research Articles

General mental ability and specific abilities: Their relative importance for extrinsic career success.

Recent research on the role of general mental ability (GMA) and specific abilities in work-related outcomes has shown that the results differ depending on the theoretical and conceptual approach that researchers use. While earlier research has typically assumed that GMA causes the specific abilities and has thus used incremental validity analysis, more recent research has explored the implications of treating GMA and specific abilities as equals (differing only in breadth and not subordination) and has used relative importance analysis. In this article, we extend this work to the prediction of extrinsic career success operationalized as pay, income, and the attainment of jobs with high prestige. Results, based on a large national sample, revealed that GMA and specific abilities measured in school were good predictors of job prestige measured after 11 years, pay measured after 11 years, and income 51 years later toward the end of the participants' work lives. With 1 exception, GMA was a dominant predictor in incremental validity analyses. However, in relative importance analyses, the majority of the explained variance was explained by specific abilities, and GMA was not more important than single specific abilities in relative importance analyses. Visuospatial, verbal, and mathematical abilities all had substantial variance shares and were also more important than GMA in some of the analyses. Implications for the interpretation of cognitive ability data and facilitating people's success in their careers are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Wages, mental abilities and assessments in large scale international surveys: Still not much more than g

We examine the role of General Mental Ability (GMA or g), versus specific abilities, in predicting wages among 69,901 participants from 19 countries in the Programme for International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC). We define GMA as the first principal component in a battery of three ability tests, and specific abilities as the low order components. Our initial results – a difference of 52%, between a g only model and a g + specific abilities model (R2s of 0.061 and 0.093, respectively) – is considerably different from earlier results suggesting that "there is not much more than g" in predicting performance. However, further analyses show that this difference is reduced to 0.5% when crucial non-cognitive individual differences (age and sex) are controlled for (R2s of 0.0763 and 0.0767, respectively). Path models of the relationships between individual differences, specific abilities, GMA and wage shed light on these results. Implications for the understanding of the relationship between mental abilities and wage, and to the understanding of cognitive test scores as representing various skills versus general ability, are discussed.

Constructing a More Comprehensive Validity Argument for Medical School Admission Testing: Predicting Long-Term Outcomes

Issue: The research published outside of medical education journals provides an important source of validity evidence for using cognitive ability testing in medical school admissions. Evidence: The cumulative body of validity research, consisting of thousands of studies and scores of meta-analyses, has conclusively demonstrated that a strong positive relationship exists between job performance and general mental ability. Implications: Recommendations for reducing the emphasis on or eliminating the role of general mental ability in the selection process for medical schools are not based on a consideration of the wider research evidence. Admission interventions that substantially reduce the level of academic aptitude are also likely to result in reduced professional performance.

Identifying leadership potential in an Australian context

There is increasing recognition that identifying leadership potential is vital for long‐term organizational survival. Using a sample of 166 Australian public service employees, and their 149 managers, this article empirically examines the role of general mental ability, problem‐solving skill, emotional intelligence, employee engagement and career aspiration in identifying leadership potential. Both manager and employee self‐ratings of leadership potential perceptions are considered as well as the presence of rater effects. Manager perceptions about problem‐solving ability, engagement and aspiration predicted their ratings of employee future leadership potential. Employee self‐ratings, apart from aspiration, did not. Rater effects were found. We discuss the implications of these results and suggest some strategies to more closely align managerial and employee views of leadership potential.

Predicting Training Success with General Mental Ability, Specific Ability Tests, and (Un)Structured Interviews: A meta-analysis with unique samples

Several meta-analyses combine an extensive amount of research concerned with predicting training success. General mental ability is regarded as the best predictor with specific abilities or tests explaining little additional variance. However, only few studies measured all predictors within one sample. Thus, intercorrelations were often estimated based on other studies. Moreover, new methods for correcting range restriction are now available. The present meta-analyses used samples derived from a German company in which applicants for different apprenticeships were tested with an intelligence structure test, specific ability tests as well as a structured and an unstructured interview. Therefore, intercorrelations between different assessment tools did not have to be estimated from other data. Results in the final examination, taking place at least 2 years after the original assessment, served as criterion variable. The dominant role of general mental ability was confirmed. However, specific abilities were identified that can be used as valuable additions. Job complexity moderated some of the relationships. Structured interviews were found to have good incremental validity over and above general mental ability. Unstructured interviews, on the other hand, performed poorly. Practical implications are discussed.

Introduction to the Special Issue: Role of General Mental Ability in Industrial, Work, and Organizational Psychology

(2002). Introduction to the Special Issue: Role of General Mental Ability in Industrial, Work, and Organizational Psychology. Human Performance: Vol. 15, No. 1-2, pp. 1-2.

Introduction to the Special Issue: Role of General Mental Ability in Industrial, Work, and Organizational Psychology

Introduction to the Special Issue: Role of General Mental Ability in Industrial, Work, and Organizational Psychology

Agreements and Disagreements on the Role of General Mental Ability (GMA) in Industrial, Work, and Organizational Psychology

Agreements and Disagreements on the Role of General Mental Ability (GMA) in Industrial, Work, and Organizational Psychology

Agreements and Disagreements on the Role of General Mental Ability (GMA) in Industrial, Work, and Organizational Psychology

General Mental Ability (GMA) has empirical evidence supporting it as a strong predictor of job performance. However, there are agreements and disagreements about the role of GMA in Industrial, Work, and Organizational (IWO) psychology. Some embrace it enthusiastically; some tolerate it; some spend their entire careers looking for ways to minimize the effects of GMA in personnel selection; and, finally, some revile and loath the very concept. The reasons for the divergence vary, and in this special issue of Human Performance we brought together leading IWO psychologists and researchers to discuss the potential role of GMA in personnel selection. In this summary, we synthesize, around eight themes, the main points of agreement and disagreements across the contributing authors. The major themes and questions are: (a) predictive value of GMA for real-life outcomes and work behaviors, (b) predictive value of GMA versus specific abilities, (c) the consequences of the criterion problem for GMA validities, (d) is utility evidence for GMA convincing?, (e) are the negative reactions to GMA tests a result of group differences?, (f) is theoretical knowledge of GMA adequate?, (g) is there promise in new methods of testing for GMA?, and (h) what is the current status of non-GMA predictors as substitutes or supplements to GMA?