Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T19:11:06.300Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Where I–O Psychology Should Really (Re)start Its Investigation of Intelligence Constructs and Their Measurement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

Filip Lievens  and
Charlie L. Reeve
Filip Lievens*
Affiliation:
Ghent University
Charlie L. Reeve
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina Charlotte
*
E-mail: [email protected], Address: Department of Personnel Management and Work and Organizational Psychology, Ghent University, Henri Dunantlaan 2, 9000 Ghent, Belgium.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , June 2012 , pp. 153 - 158
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2012 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ackerman, P. L. (1996). A theory of adult intellectual development: Process, personality, interests, and knowledge. Intelligence, 22, 227–257.Google Scholar
Aftanas, M. S. (1988). Theories, models, and standard systems of measurement. Applied Psychological Measurement, 12, 325–338.Google Scholar
Arthur, W. Jr., Day, E. A., McNelly, T. L., & Edens, P. S. (2003). A meta-analysis of the criterion-related validity of assessment center dimensions. Personnel Psychology, 56, 125–154.Google Scholar
Arthur, W. Jr., & Villado, A. J. (2008). The importance of distinguishing between constructs and methods when comparing predictors in personnel selection research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 435–442.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2005). Personality and intellectual competence. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Google Scholar
Christian, M. S., Edwards, B. D., & Bradley, J. C. (2010). Situational judgment tests: Constructs assessed and a meta-analysis of their criterion-related validities. Personnel Psychology, 63, 83–117.Google Scholar
Deary, I. (Ed.).(2009). Intelligence, health and death: The emerging field of cognitive epidemiology. Intelligence, 37, 517–519.Google Scholar
Gottfredson, L. (2009). Logical fallacies used to dismiss the evidence on intelligence testing. In Phelps, R. (Ed.), Correcting fallacies about educational and psychological testing (pp. 11–65). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Google Scholar
Haier, R. J. (2009). Neuro-intelligence, neuro-metrics and the next phase of brain imaging studies. Intelligence, 37, 121–123.Google Scholar
Hattrup, K., Schmitt, N., & Landis, R. S. (1992). Equivalence of constructs measured by job-specific and commercially available aptitude tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 298–308.Google Scholar
Huffcutt, A. I., Conway, J. M., Roth, P. L., & Stone, N. J. (2001). Identification and meta-analytic assessment of psychological constructs measured in employment interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 897–913.Google Scholar
Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Westport, CT: Praeger. Google Scholar
Jensen, A. R. (2006). Clocking the mind: Mental chronometry and individual differences. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier. Google Scholar
Klingner, Y., & Schuler, H. (2004). Improving participants' evaluations while maintaining validity by a work sample–intelligence test hybrid. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12, 120–134.Google Scholar
Lubinski, D. (2000). Scientific and social significance of assessing individual differences: “Sinking shafts at a few critical points.” Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 405–444.Google Scholar
Lubinski, D. (Ed.). (2004). Cognitive abilities: 100 years after Spearman's (1904) ‘General intelligence,’ objectively determined and measured. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 96–199.Google Scholar
Naglieri, J. A., & Das, J. P. (2005). Planning, attention, simultaneous, successive (PASS) theory: A revision of the concept of intelligence. In Flanagan, D. P. & Harrison, P. L. (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (2nd ed., pp. 120–135). New York, NY: Guilford. Google Scholar
Park, G., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2008). Ability differences among people who have commensurate degrees matter for scientific creativity. Psychological Science, 19, 957–961.Google Scholar
Reeve, C. L. (2004). Differential ability antecedents of general and specific dimensions of declarative knowledge: More than g . Intelligence, 32, 621–652.Google Scholar
Reeve, C. L., & Bonaccio, S. (2011). The nature and structure of “intelligence.” In Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Furnham, A., & von Stumm, S. (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences (pp. 187–216). Oxford, England: Wiley-Blackwell. Google Scholar
Scherbaum, C. A., Goldstein, H. W., Yusko, K. P., Ryan, R., & Hanges, P. J. (2012). Intelligence 2.0: Reestablishing a research program on g in I–O psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 5, 128–148.Google Scholar
Snow, R. E. (2002). Remaking the concept of aptitude: Extending the legacy of Richard E. Snow (work completed by L. Corno, L. J. Cronbach, H. Kupermintz, D. F. Lohman, E. B. Mandinach, A. W. Porteus, & J. E. Talbert). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Google Scholar
Wirth, J., & Klieme, E. (2003). Computer-based assessment of problem solving competence. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy, & Practice, 10, 329–345.Google Scholar