It takes more than meta-analysis to kill cognitive ability

Abstract

Methodology: Too many subjective decisions Methodological concerns related to Sackett et al. (2022, 2023) meta-analysis were already raised by Oh, Le, and Roth (in press). I would like to concentrate here on the conceptual discussion of the two focal methodological decisions of Sackett et al., which, in my view, results in the lowering of the general mental ability (GMA) validity estimates. First, to not attempt a correction for range restriction and, second, to not control for job complexity. Sackett et al. (2022, 2023) propose that range restriction is an issue mainly if the predictor in question was used in selecting the validation sample, and they argue that this would virtually never be the case in validation studies on GMA included in their meta-analysis, as this is unlikely that the same or similar GMA test scores used in validation procedures were also a part of the selection process. But, GMA was and still is considered one of the most important job performance predictors, as Kuncel, Ones, and Sackett (2010, p. 333) notice: “Cognitive ability is the workhorse of employee selection.” So why it is unlikely that GMA tests of some sort were used as a basis of selection procedures in validation studies? This is unclear to me and not explained sufficiently. But even if we assume that GMA tests were never used as a part of selection procedures in studies analyzed by Sackett et al. (2022, 2023), this still does not mean that employees were not directly and indirectly selected based on GMA. It seems that Sackett et al. (2022) misinterpret the GMA test score with GMA as a construct itself, but it is not cognitive ability tests that predict performance but cognitive ability. It is important to notice that various GMA tests scores to a large extend reflect a common construct (Johnson et al., 2008), which “involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience” (Gottfredson, 1997a, p.13). This seems to be an ability developed in a time of the test, not the genetic potential or hereditary talent (see Schmidt, 2002). Assuming that it is unlikely that employees are directly hired based on their GMA is as assuming that it is unlikely that during selection procedures the abilities to plan, solve problems, reason, and learn from experience are directly taken into account by employers, but if these are not the basis for selection in most jobs, then what is? I argue that because of GMA’s nature and importance in our lives (Brown et al., 2021), GMA as a construct is a vital criterion for selecting employees for jobs even if there is no formal GMA test in recruitment procedures. Jobs vary in cognitive complexity (https://www. onetonline.org/find/descriptor/browse/1.A), and job incumbents are not randomly assigned to jobs, but applicants take different jobs and occupy different positions based on the fit between their cognitive abilities and the complexity of the job (Gottfredson, 1997b). Individuals gravitate to jobs that are congruent with their cognitive ability (Judge et al., 2010; Wilk & Sackett, 1996) thus if