What Can We Learn from “Not Much More than g”?
AbstractA 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. 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
Murphy, K. What Can We Learn from “Not Much More than g”? J. Intell. 2017, 5, 8.
Murphy K. What Can We Learn from “Not Much More than g”? Journal of Intelligence. 2017; 5(1):8.Chicago/Turabian Style
Murphy, Kevin. 2017. "What Can We Learn from “Not Much More than g”?" J. Intell. 5, no. 1: 8.
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.