Cargando…

What Can We Learn from “Not Much More than g”?

A series of papers showing that measures of general cognitive ability predicted performance on the job and in training and that measures of specific cognitive abilities rarely made an incremental contribution to prediction led to a premature decline in research on the roles of specific abilities in...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Murphy, Kevin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6526477/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31162399
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence5010008
_version_ 1783419902841847808
author Murphy, Kevin
author_facet Murphy, Kevin
author_sort Murphy, Kevin
collection PubMed
description A series of papers showing that measures of general cognitive ability predicted performance on the job and in training and that measures of specific cognitive abilities rarely made an incremental contribution to prediction led to a premature decline in research on the roles of specific abilities in the workplace. Lessons learned from this research include the importance of choosing the right general cognitive measures and variables, the relative roles of prediction vs. understanding and the need for a wide range of criteria when evaluating the contribution of specific skills such as complex problem solving. In particular, research published since the “not much more than g” era suggests that distinguishing between fluid and crystallized intelligence is important for understanding the development and the contribution of complex problem solving.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6526477
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65264772019-05-29 What Can We Learn from “Not Much More than g”? Murphy, Kevin J Intell Article A series of papers showing that measures of general cognitive ability predicted performance on the job and in training and that measures of specific cognitive abilities rarely made an incremental contribution to prediction led to a premature decline in research on the roles of specific abilities in the workplace. Lessons learned from this research include the importance of choosing the right general cognitive measures and variables, the relative roles of prediction vs. understanding and the need for a wide range of criteria when evaluating the contribution of specific skills such as complex problem solving. In particular, research published since the “not much more than g” era suggests that distinguishing between fluid and crystallized intelligence is important for understanding the development and the contribution of complex problem solving. MDPI 2017-02-25 /pmc/articles/PMC6526477/ /pubmed/31162399 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence5010008 Text en © 2017 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Murphy, Kevin
What Can We Learn from “Not Much More than g”?
title What Can We Learn from “Not Much More than g”?
title_full What Can We Learn from “Not Much More than g”?
title_fullStr What Can We Learn from “Not Much More than g”?
title_full_unstemmed What Can We Learn from “Not Much More than g”?
title_short What Can We Learn from “Not Much More than g”?
title_sort what can we learn from “not much more than g”?
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6526477/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31162399
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence5010008
work_keys_str_mv AT murphykevin whatcanwelearnfromnotmuchmorethang