下一个转移注意力的是关于一般智力衰退的传言

IF 11.5 3区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED

Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice Pub Date : 2023-08-31 DOI:10.1017/iop.2023.37

Jeffrey M. Cucina, Theodore L. Hayes

{"title":"下一个转移注意力的是关于一般智力衰退的传言","authors":"Jeffrey M. Cucina, Theodore L. Hayes","doi":"10.1017/iop.2023.37","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper we focus on the lowered validity for general mental ability (GMA) tests by presenting: (a) a history of the range restriction correction controversy; (b) a review of validity evidence using various criteria; and (c) multiple paradoxes that arise with a lower GMA validity","PeriodicalId":47771,"journal":{"name":"Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice","volume":"16 1","pages":"301 - 306"},"PeriodicalIF":11.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rumors of general mental ability’s demise are the next red herring\",\"authors\":\"Jeffrey M. Cucina, Theodore L. Hayes\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/iop.2023.37\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this paper we focus on the lowered validity for general mental ability (GMA) tests by presenting: (a) a history of the range restriction correction controversy; (b) a review of validity evidence using various criteria; and (c) multiple paradoxes that arise with a lower GMA validity\",\"PeriodicalId\":47771,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"301 - 306\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":11.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2023.37\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2023.37","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

摘要

在这篇论文中，我们通过以下内容来关注GMA测试的有效性降低：（a）范围限制校正争议的历史；（b）使用各种标准对有效性证据进行审查；以及（c）GMA有效性较低时出现的多重悖论

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Rumors of general mental ability’s demise are the next red herring

In this paper we focus on the lowered validity for general mental ability (GMA) tests by presenting: (a) a history of the range restriction correction controversy; (b) a review of validity evidence using various criteria; and (c) multiple paradoxes that arise with a lower GMA validity

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED-

CiteScore

7.70

自引率

10.10%

发文量

期刊介绍： Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice is a peer-reviewed academic journal published on behalf of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. The journal focuses on interactive exchanges on topics of importance to the science and practice of the field. It features articles that present new ideas or different takes on existing ideas, stimulating dialogue about important issues in the field. Additionally, the journal is indexed and abstracted in Clarivate Analytics SSCI, Clarivate Analytics Web of Science, European Reference Index for the Humanities and Social Sciences (ERIH PLUS), ProQuest, PsycINFO, and Scopus.