枪手里有g吗?枪械熟练程度的认知预测因素

IF 4.3 3区 材料科学 Q1 ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC
Jeffrey M. Cucina , Kimberly J. Wilson , Philip T. Walmsley , Lisa M. Votraw , Theodore L. Hayes
{"title":"枪手里有g吗?枪械熟练程度的认知预测因素","authors":"Jeffrey M. Cucina ,&nbsp;Kimberly J. Wilson ,&nbsp;Philip T. Walmsley ,&nbsp;Lisa M. Votraw ,&nbsp;Theodore L. Hayes","doi":"10.1016/j.intell.2023.101768","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This study addressed a gap in the research literature by evaluating the validity of general mental ability (<em>g</em>) and personality test scores for prediction of firearms proficiency via shooting range performance, an entirely objective task-based criterion. It was hypothesized that mental ability test scores would be positively related to firearms proficiency based on past research in related areas (e.g., <em>g</em> predicts skill acquisition and training performance) and conceptual similarities between firearms proficiency and cognitive tasks. Using 4 datasets with a combined sample size of 22,525 individuals, this hypothesis was confirmed: <em>g</em> had operational validities ranging from .162 to .188 and logical reasoning had operational validities ranging from .179 to .268 after correcting for range restriction and criterion unreliability. Mental ability test scores predicted an entirely psychomotor criterion task: use of firearms to hit targets at a pre-determined level of accuracy. Most of the validity appears to be attributable to <em>g</em>, but a post hoc analysis indicated that writing ability acted as a suppressor (i.e., the validity of <em>g</em> increased when writing ability was included in a regression model). Conscientiousness was hypothesized to have a positive relationship with firearms performance and emotional stability was hypothesized to have positive linear and quadratic relationships. In contrast, it was observed that conscientiousness had a negative operational validity (−.079) and emotional stability lacked validity relative to the firearms proficiency criterion. The implications for individual differences research and practice are discussed.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":3,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is there a g in gunslinger? Cognitive predictors of firearms proficiency\",\"authors\":\"Jeffrey M. Cucina ,&nbsp;Kimberly J. Wilson ,&nbsp;Philip T. Walmsley ,&nbsp;Lisa M. Votraw ,&nbsp;Theodore L. Hayes\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.intell.2023.101768\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>This study addressed a gap in the research literature by evaluating the validity of general mental ability (<em>g</em>) and personality test scores for prediction of firearms proficiency via shooting range performance, an entirely objective task-based criterion. It was hypothesized that mental ability test scores would be positively related to firearms proficiency based on past research in related areas (e.g., <em>g</em> predicts skill acquisition and training performance) and conceptual similarities between firearms proficiency and cognitive tasks. Using 4 datasets with a combined sample size of 22,525 individuals, this hypothesis was confirmed: <em>g</em> had operational validities ranging from .162 to .188 and logical reasoning had operational validities ranging from .179 to .268 after correcting for range restriction and criterion unreliability. Mental ability test scores predicted an entirely psychomotor criterion task: use of firearms to hit targets at a pre-determined level of accuracy. Most of the validity appears to be attributable to <em>g</em>, but a post hoc analysis indicated that writing ability acted as a suppressor (i.e., the validity of <em>g</em> increased when writing ability was included in a regression model). Conscientiousness was hypothesized to have a positive relationship with firearms performance and emotional stability was hypothesized to have positive linear and quadratic relationships. In contrast, it was observed that conscientiousness had a negative operational validity (−.079) and emotional stability lacked validity relative to the firearms proficiency criterion. The implications for individual differences research and practice are discussed.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":3,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Electronic Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Electronic Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289623000491\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"材料科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289623000491","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

本研究通过评估一般心理能力(g)和人格测试分数在通过射击场表现(一个完全客观的基于任务的标准)预测枪支熟练程度方面的有效性,解决了研究文献中的空白。基于过去相关领域的研究(例如,g预测技能习得和训练表现)以及枪械熟练程度与认知任务之间的概念相似性,假设心理能力测试分数与枪械熟练程度呈正相关。使用4个数据集,总样本量为22,525人,这一假设得到证实:g的操作效度范围为0.162至0.188,逻辑推理的操作效度范围为0.179至0.268,校正了范围限制和标准不可靠性。心理能力测试分数预测了一个完全精神运动的标准任务:使用枪支以预先确定的精度击中目标。大部分效度似乎归因于g,但事后分析表明,写作能力起着抑制作用(即,当写作能力被纳入回归模型时,g的效度增加)。假设严谨性与枪械性能存在正相关关系,假设情绪稳定性与枪械性能存在正线性和二次关系。相对于枪械熟练度标准,严谨性的操作效度为负(- 0.079),情绪稳定性的效度为负。讨论了个体差异研究和实践的意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Is there a g in gunslinger? Cognitive predictors of firearms proficiency

This study addressed a gap in the research literature by evaluating the validity of general mental ability (g) and personality test scores for prediction of firearms proficiency via shooting range performance, an entirely objective task-based criterion. It was hypothesized that mental ability test scores would be positively related to firearms proficiency based on past research in related areas (e.g., g predicts skill acquisition and training performance) and conceptual similarities between firearms proficiency and cognitive tasks. Using 4 datasets with a combined sample size of 22,525 individuals, this hypothesis was confirmed: g had operational validities ranging from .162 to .188 and logical reasoning had operational validities ranging from .179 to .268 after correcting for range restriction and criterion unreliability. Mental ability test scores predicted an entirely psychomotor criterion task: use of firearms to hit targets at a pre-determined level of accuracy. Most of the validity appears to be attributable to g, but a post hoc analysis indicated that writing ability acted as a suppressor (i.e., the validity of g increased when writing ability was included in a regression model). Conscientiousness was hypothesized to have a positive relationship with firearms performance and emotional stability was hypothesized to have positive linear and quadratic relationships. In contrast, it was observed that conscientiousness had a negative operational validity (−.079) and emotional stability lacked validity relative to the firearms proficiency criterion. The implications for individual differences research and practice are discussed.

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
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
567
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信