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)
Open AccessReply

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
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contribute equally to this work.
Academic Editor: Paul De Boeck
Received: 5 December 2016 / Revised: 24 December 2016 / Accepted: 27 December 2016 / Published: 5 January 2017
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
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.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop