Next Article in Journal
Sometimes More is Too Much: A Rejoinder to the Commentaries on Greiff et al. (2015)
Previous Article in Journal
Confirmatory Factor Analysis of WAIS-IV in a Clinical Sample: Examining a Bi-Factor Model
Open AccessCommentary

Sometimes Less Is Not Enough: A Commentary on Greiff et al. (2015)

1
Hector Research Institute of Education Sciences and Psychology, Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, 72072 Tübingen, Germany
2
School of Psychology, University of Western Australia, Crawley WA 6009, Australia
Academic Editor: Paul De Boeck
Received: 24 May 2016 / Revised: 25 September 2016 / Accepted: 31 October 2016 / Published: 5 January 2017
In 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
Keywords: complex problem solving; assessment; multiple complex systems; validity complex problem solving; assessment; multiple complex systems; validity
MDPI and ACS Style

Kretzschmar, A. Sometimes Less Is Not Enough: A Commentary on Greiff et al. (2015). J. Intell. 2017, 5, 4.

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.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop