Next Article in Journal
When Less Is Less: Solving Multiple Simple Problems Is Not Complex Problem Solving—A comment on Greiff et al. (2015)
Previous Article in Journal
Sometimes Less Is Not Enough: A Commentary on Greiff et al. (2015)
Article Menu

Export Article

Open AccessReply
J. Intell. 2017, 5(1), 6; doi:10.3390/jintelligence5010006

Sometimes More is Too Much: A Rejoinder to the Commentaries on Greiff et al. (2015)

1
ECCS unit, University of Luxembourg, 11, Porte des Sciences 4366 Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg
2
Lehrstuhl für Schulpädagogik, Universität Regensburg, 93053 Regensburg, Germany
3
Organizational and Business Psychology, Technische Universität Darmstadt, 64289 Darmstadt, Germany
These authors contribute equally to this work.
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editor: Paul De Boeck
Received: 5 December 2016 / Revised: 24 December 2016 / Accepted: 27 December 2016 / Published: 5 January 2017
View Full-Text   |   Download PDF [239 KB, 10 January 2017; original version 5 January 2017]

Abstract

In this rejoinder, we respond to two commentaries on 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. The study was the first to address the important comparison between a classical measure of complex problem solving (CPS) and the more recent multiple complex systems (MCS) approach regarding their validity. In the study, we investigated the relations between one classical microworld as the initially developed method (here, the Tailorshop) with three more recently developed multiple complex systems (MCS; here, MicroDYN, Genetics Lab, and MicroFIN) tests. We found that the MCS tests showed higher levels of convergent validity with each other than with the Tailorshop even after reasoning was controlled for, thus empirically distinguishing between the two approaches. The commentary by Kretzschmar and the commentary by Funke, Fischer, and Holt expressed several concerns with how our study was conducted, our data was analyzed, and our results were interpreted. Whereas we acknowledge and agree with some of the more general statements made in these commentaries, we respectfully disagree with others, or we consider them to be at least partially in contrast with the existing literature and the currently available empirical evidence. View Full-Text
Keywords: complex problem solving; multiple complex systems; Tailorshop; reasoning; intelligence; validity; structural equation modeling complex problem solving; multiple complex systems; Tailorshop; reasoning; intelligence; validity; structural equation modeling
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. (CC BY 4.0).

Scifeed alert for new publications

Never 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

SciFeed Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Greiff, S.; Stadler, M.; Sonnleitner, P.; Wolff, C.; Martin, R. Sometimes More is Too Much: A Rejoinder to the Commentaries on Greiff et al. (2015). J. Intell. 2017, 5, 6.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

1

Comments

[Return to top]
J. Intell. EISSN 2079-3200 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top