Sometimes Less Is Not Enough: A Commentary on Greiff et al. (2015)
AbstractIn this commentary, I discuss some critical issues in the study by Greiff, S.; Stadler, M.; Sonnleitner, P.; Wolff, C.; Martin, R., “Sometimes less is more: Comparing the validity of complex problem solving measures”, Intelligence 2015, 50, 100–113. I conclude that—counter to the claims made in the original study—the specific study design was not suitable for deriving conclusions about the validity of different complex problem-solving (CPS) measurement approaches. Furthermore, a more elaborate consideration of previous CPS research was found to challenge Greiff et al.’s conclusions even further. Therefore, I argue that researchers should be aware of the differences between several kinds of CPS assessment tools and conceptualizations when the validity of CPS assessment tools is examined in future research. View Full-Text
Scifeed alert for new publicationsNever miss any articles matching your research from any publisher
- Get alerts for new papers matching your research
- Find out the new papers from selected authors
- Updated daily for 49'000+ journals and 6000+ publishers
- Define your Scifeed now
Kretzschmar, A. Sometimes Less Is Not Enough: A Commentary on Greiff et al. (2015). J. Intell. 2017, 5, 4.
Kretzschmar A. Sometimes Less Is Not Enough: A Commentary on Greiff et al. (2015). Journal of Intelligence. 2017; 5(1):4.Chicago/Turabian Style
Kretzschmar, André. 2017. "Sometimes Less Is Not Enough: A Commentary on Greiff et al. (2015)." J. Intell. 5, no. 1: 4.
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.