In defence of cognitive ability testing: Affirming the evidence for its continued use in personnel selection and admission decisions

We engage with the arguments presented by Woods and Patterson (2023) [Woods, S. A., & Patterson, F. (2023). A critical review of the use of cognitive ability testing for selection into graduate and higher professional occupations. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 97, 253–272.], regarding the use of cognitive ability tests in employee selection and academic admissions. We examine assumptions about cognitive ability test validity, fairness and bias and address arguments against the use of cognitive ability tests in five ways. First, we highlight that Woods and Patterson's (2023) propositions overly depend on a single study by Sackett et al. (2022) Sackett, P. R., Zhang, C., Berry, C. M., & Lievens, F. (2022). Revisiting meta-analytic estimates of validity in personnel selection: Addressing systematic overcorrection for restriction of range. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(11), 2040–2068.], which has faced significant criticisms. Second, we point out that a test with adverse impact can be used if it is job-related and an unbiased predictor of performance. Third, we question the alleged ‘higher’ objectivity and fairness of alternative non-cognitive selection procedures. Fourth, we critique overgeneralizations of findings from employment contexts to educational settings and challenge the atheoretical basis of rejecting cognitive ability tests in complex work settings. Fifth, we point out that recent calls for reducing the role of cognitive ability testing in selection do not consider the side effects and costs of those presumed alternatives. We advocate for responsible cognitive ability testing by combining it with valid non-cognitive predictors to balance validity and adverse impact, using validated tests by trained professionals, ensuring cultural relevance and effectively communicating test processes.