Journal of Intelligence

9 pages, 261 KB

Open AccessEditorial

Why Real-World Problems Go Unresolved and What We Can Do about It: Inferences from a Limited-Resource Model of Successful Intelligence

by Robert J. Sternberg

J. Intell. 2018, 6(3), 44; https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence6030044 - 13 Sep 2018

Cited by 7 | Viewed by 9373

Abstract

In this article I suggest why a symposium is desirable on the topic of why, despite worldwide increases in IQ since the beginning of the 20th century, there are so many unresolved and dramatic problems in the world. I briefly discuss what some [...] Read more.

In this article I suggest why a symposium is desirable on the topic of why, despite worldwide increases in IQ since the beginning of the 20th century, there are so many unresolved and dramatic problems in the world. I briefly discuss what some of these problems are, and the paradox of people with higher IQs not only being unable to solve them, but in some cases people being unwilling to address them. I suggest that higher IQ is not always highly relevant to the problems, and in some cases, may displace other skills that better would apply to the solution of the problems. I present a limited-resource model as an adjunct to the augmented theory of successful intelligence. The model suggests that increasing societal emphases on analytical abilities have displaced development and utilization of other skills, especially creative, practical, and wisdom-based ones, that better could be applied to serious world problems. I also discuss the importance of cognitive inoculation against unscrupulous and sometimes malevolent attempts to change belief systems. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue If Intelligence Is Truly Important to Real-World Adaptation, and IQs Have Risen 30+ Points in the Past Century (Flynn Effect), then Why Are There So Many Unresolved and Dramatic Problems in the World, and What Can Be Done About It?)

15 pages, 1565 KB

Open AccessFeature PaperCommentary

Non-g Factors Predict Educational and Occupational Criteria: More than g

by Thomas R. Coyle

J. Intell. 2018, 6(3), 43; https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence6030043 - 7 Sep 2018

Cited by 33 | Viewed by 10754

Abstract

In a prior issue of the Journal of Intelligence, I argued that the most important scientific issue in intelligence research was to identify specific abilities with validity beyond g (i.e., variance common to mental tests) (Coyle, T.R. Predictive validity of non-g [...] Read more.

In a prior issue of the Journal of Intelligence, I argued that the most important scientific issue in intelligence research was to identify specific abilities with validity beyond g (i.e., variance common to mental tests) (Coyle, T.R. Predictive validity of non-g residuals of tests: More than g. Journal of Intelligence 2014, 2, 21–25.). In this Special Issue, I review my research on specific abilities related to non-g factors. The non-g factors include specific math and verbal abilities based on standardized tests (SAT, ACT, PSAT, Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery). I focus on two non-g factors: (a) non-g residuals, obtained after removing g from tests, and (b) ability tilt, defined as within-subject differences between math and verbal scores, yielding math tilt (math > verbal) and verbal tilt (verbal > math). In general, math residuals and tilt positively predict STEM criteria (college majors, jobs, GPAs) and negatively predict humanities criteria, whereas verbal residuals and tilt show the opposite pattern. The paper concludes with suggestions for future research, with a focus on theories of non-g factors (e.g., investment theories, Spearman’s Law of Diminishing Returns, Cognitive Differentiation-Integration Effort Model) and a magnification model of non-g factors. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Great Debate: General Ability and Specific Abilities in the Prediction of Important Outcomes)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

23 pages, 4802 KB

Open AccessArticle

Bifactor Models for Predicting Criteria by General and Specific Factors: Problems of Nonidentifiability and Alternative Solutions

by Michael Eid, Stefan Krumm, Tobias Koch and Julian Schulze

J. Intell. 2018, 6(3), 42; https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence6030042 - 7 Sep 2018

Cited by 87 | Viewed by 13473

Abstract

The bifactor model is a widely applied model to analyze general and specific abilities. Extensions of bifactor models additionally include criterion variables. In such extended bifactor models, the general and specific factors can be correlated with criterion variables. Moreover, the influence of general [...] Read more.

The bifactor model is a widely applied model to analyze general and specific abilities. Extensions of bifactor models additionally include criterion variables. In such extended bifactor models, the general and specific factors can be correlated with criterion variables. Moreover, the influence of general and specific factors on criterion variables can be scrutinized in latent multiple regression models that are built on bifactor measurement models. This study employs an extended bifactor model to predict mathematics and English grades by three facets of intelligence (number series, verbal analogies, and unfolding). We show that, if the observed variables do not differ in their loadings, extended bifactor models are not identified and not applicable. Moreover, we reveal that standard errors of regression weights in extended bifactor models can be very large and, thus, lead to invalid conclusions. A formal proof of the nonidentification is presented. Subsequently, we suggest alternative approaches for predicting criterion variables by general and specific factors. In particular, we illustrate how (1) composite ability factors can be defined in extended first-order factor models and (2) how bifactor(S-1) models can be applied. The differences between first-order factor models and bifactor(S-1) models for predicting criterion variables are discussed in detail and illustrated with the empirical example. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Great Debate: General Ability and Specific Abilities in the Prediction of Important Outcomes)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

21 pages, 3680 KB

Open AccessFeature PaperArticle

How Specific Abilities Might Throw ‘g’ a Curve: An Idea on How to Capitalize on the Predictive Validity of Specific Cognitive Abilities

by Matthias Ziegler and Aaron Peikert

J. Intell. 2018, 6(3), 41; https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence6030041 - 7 Sep 2018

Cited by 6 | Viewed by 9034

Abstract

School grades are still used by universities and employers for selection purposes. Thus, identifying determinants of school grades is important. Broadly, two predictor categories can be differentiated from an individual difference perspective: cognitive abilities and personality traits. Over time, evidence accumulated supporting the [...] Read more.

School grades are still used by universities and employers for selection purposes. Thus, identifying determinants of school grades is important. Broadly, two predictor categories can be differentiated from an individual difference perspective: cognitive abilities and personality traits. Over time, evidence accumulated supporting the notion of the g-factor as the best single predictor of school grades. Specific abilities were shown to add little incremental validity. The current paper aims at reviving research on which cognitive abilities predict performance. Based on ideas of criterion contamination and deficiency as well as Spearman’s ability differentiation hypothesis, two mechanisms are suggested which both would lead to curvilinear relations between specific abilities and grades. While the data set provided for this special issue does not allow testing these mechanisms directly, we tested the idea of curvilinear relations. In particular, polynomial regressions were used. Machine learning was applied to identify the best fitting models in each of the subjects math, German, and English. In particular, we fitted polynomial models with varying degrees and evaluated their accuracy with a leave-one-out validation approach. The results show that tests of specific abilities slightly outperform the g-factor when curvilinearity is assumed. Possible theoretical explanations are discussed. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Great Debate: General Ability and Specific Abilities in the Prediction of Important Outcomes)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

14 pages, 430 KB

Open AccessArticle

Aligning Predictor-Criterion Bandwidths: Specific Abilities as Predictors of Specific Performance

by Serena Wee

J. Intell. 2018, 6(3), 40; https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence6030040 - 7 Sep 2018

Cited by 12 | Viewed by 7983

Abstract

The purpose of the current study is to compare the extent to which general and specific abilities predict academic performances that are also varied in breadth (i.e., general performance and specific performance). The general and specific constructs were assumed to vary only in [...] Read more.

The purpose of the current study is to compare the extent to which general and specific abilities predict academic performances that are also varied in breadth (i.e., general performance and specific performance). The general and specific constructs were assumed to vary only in breadth, not order, and two data analytic approaches (i.e., structural equation modeling [SEM] and relative weights analysis) consistent with this theoretical assumption were compared. Conclusions regarding the relative importance of general and specific abilities differed based on data analytic approaches. The SEM approach identified general ability as the strongest and only significant predictor of general academic performance, with neither general nor specific abilities predicting any of the specific subject grade residuals. The relative weights analysis identified verbal reasoning as contributing more than general ability, or other specific abilities, to the explained variance in general academic performance. Verbal reasoning also contributed to most of the explained variance in each of the specific subject grades. These results do not provide support for the utility of predictor-criterion alignment, but they do provide evidence that both general and specific abilities can serve as useful predictors of performance. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Great Debate: General Ability and Specific Abilities in the Prediction of Important Outcomes)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

8 pages, 497 KB

Open AccessEditorial

The Great Debate: General Ability and Specific Abilities in the Prediction of Important Outcomes

by Harrison J. Kell and Jonas W. B. Lang

J. Intell. 2018, 6(3), 39; https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence6030039 - 7 Sep 2018

Cited by 17 | Viewed by 8915

Abstract

The relative value of specific versus general cognitive abilities for the prediction of practical outcomes has been debated since the inception of modern intelligence theorizing and testing. This editorial introduces a special issue dedicated to exploring this ongoing “great debate”. It provides an [...] Read more.

The relative value of specific versus general cognitive abilities for the prediction of practical outcomes has been debated since the inception of modern intelligence theorizing and testing. This editorial introduces a special issue dedicated to exploring this ongoing “great debate”. It provides an overview of the debate, explains the motivation for the special issue and two types of submissions solicited, and briefly illustrates how differing conceptualizations of cognitive abilities demand different analytic strategies for predicting criteria, and that these different strategies can yield conflicting findings about the real-world importance of general versus specific abilities. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Great Debate: General Ability and Specific Abilities in the Prediction of Important Outcomes)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

8 pages, 464 KB

Open AccessOpinion

Multiple Intelligences in Teaching and Education: Lessons Learned from Neuroscience

by Branton Shearer

J. Intell. 2018, 6(3), 38; https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence6030038 - 31 Aug 2018

Cited by 32 | Viewed by 26213

Abstract

This brief paper summarizes a mixed method review of over 500 neuroscientific reports investigating the proposition that general intelligence (g or IQ) and multiple intelligences (MI) can be integrated based on common and unique neural systems. Extrapolated from this interpretation are five [...] Read more.

This brief paper summarizes a mixed method review of over 500 neuroscientific reports investigating the proposition that general intelligence (g or IQ) and multiple intelligences (MI) can be integrated based on common and unique neural systems. Extrapolated from this interpretation are five principles that inform teaching and curriculum so that education can be strengths-based and personalized to promote academic achievement. This framework is proposed as a comprehensive model for a system of educational cognitive neuroscience that will serve the fields of neuroscience as well as educators. Five key principles identified are culture matters, every brain is unique—activate strengths, know thyself, embodied cognition/emotional rudder, and make it mean something. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Intelligence in Education)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

16 pages, 694 KB

Open AccessArticle

Using Standardized Test Scores to Include General Cognitive Ability in Education Research and Policy

by Jonathan Wai, Matt I. Brown and Christopher F. Chabris

J. Intell. 2018, 6(3), 37; https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence6030037 - 2 Aug 2018

Cited by 32 | Viewed by 44113

Abstract

In education research and education policy, much attention is paid to schools, curricula, and teachers, but little attention is paid to the characteristics of students. Differences in general cognitive ability (g) are often overlooked as a source of important variance among [...] Read more.

In education research and education policy, much attention is paid to schools, curricula, and teachers, but little attention is paid to the characteristics of students. Differences in general cognitive ability (g) are often overlooked as a source of important variance among schools and in outcomes among students within schools. Standardized test scores such as the SAT and ACT are reasonably good proxies for g and are available for most incoming college students. Though the idea of g being important in education is quite old, we present contemporary evidence that colleges and universities in the United States vary considerably in the average cognitive ability of their students, which correlates strongly with other methods (including international methods) of ranking colleges. We also show that these g differences are reflected in the extent to which graduates of colleges are represented in various high-status and high-income occupations. Finally, we show how including individual-level measures of cognitive ability can substantially increase the statistical power of experiments designed to measure educational treatment effects. We conclude that education policy researchers should give more consideration to the concept of individual differences in cognitive ability as well as other factors. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Intelligence in Education)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

25 pages, 365 KB

Open AccessReview

A Misuse of IQ Scores: Using the Dual Discrepancy/Consistency Model for Identifying Specific Learning Disabilities

by A. Alexander Beaujean, Nicholas F. Benson, Ryan J. McGill and Stefan C. Dombrowski

J. Intell. 2018, 6(3), 36; https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence6030036 - 1 Aug 2018

Cited by 24 | Viewed by 35958

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to describe the origins of patterns of strengths and weaknesses (PSW) methods for identifying specific learning disabilities (SLD) and to provide a comprehensive review of the assumptions and evidence supporting the most commonly-used PSW method in the [...] Read more.

The purpose of this article is to describe the origins of patterns of strengths and weaknesses (PSW) methods for identifying specific learning disabilities (SLD) and to provide a comprehensive review of the assumptions and evidence supporting the most commonly-used PSW method in the United States: Dual Discrepancy/Consistency (DD/C). Given their use in determining whether students have access to special education and related services, it is important that any method used to identify SLD have supporting evidence. A review of the DD/C evidence indicates it cannot currently be classified as an evidence-based method for identifying individuals with a SLD. We show that the DD/C method is unsound for three major reasons: (a) it requires test scores have properties that they fundamentally lack, (b) lack of experimental utility evidence supporting its use, and (c) evidence supporting the inability of the method to identify SLD accurately. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Intelligence in Education)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

22 pages, 866 KB

Open AccessArticle

The Enriching Interplay between Openness and Interest: A Theoretical Elaboration of the OFCI Model and a First Empirical Test

by Matthias Ziegler, Titus A. Schroeter, Oliver Lüdtke and Lena Roemer

J. Intell. 2018, 6(3), 35; https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence6030035 - 1 Aug 2018

Cited by 32 | Viewed by 9503

Abstract

The Openness-Fluid-Crystallized-Intelligence (OFCI) model posits long-term relations between Openness and cognitive abilities and has been successfully tested with longitudinal data. However, research on the developmental interplay between cognitive abilities and personality exists only sparsely. The current paper focuses on a theoretical development of [...] Read more.

The Openness-Fluid-Crystallized-Intelligence (OFCI) model posits long-term relations between Openness and cognitive abilities and has been successfully tested with longitudinal data. However, research on the developmental interplay between cognitive abilities and personality exists only sparsely. The current paper focuses on a theoretical development of the OFCI model which suggests micro-level mechanisms underlying the long-term development. Specifically, within-situation relations between Openness, interests, situational perception, cognitive abilities, and emotions are proposed to explain longitudinal relations between Openness and cognitive abilities. Using experience sampling, selected parts of this elaboration were empirically scrutinized in a first test of the proposed ideas. Openness and specific interest both varied substantially across situations and covaried systematically. In interaction with an indicator of fluid intelligence, this covariation was related to an indicator of crystallized intelligence. The paper contributes to theorizing the intertwined development of personality and cognitive abilities, and highlights the importance of within-situation research for explaining long-term development. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Ability-Personality Integration)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

22 pages, 661 KB

Open AccessFeature PaperArticle

Cognitive Models in Intelligence Research: Advantages and Recommendations for Their Application

by Gidon T. Frischkorn and Anna-Lena Schubert

J. Intell. 2018, 6(3), 34; https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence6030034 - 17 Jul 2018

Cited by 44 | Viewed by 14628

Abstract

Mathematical models of cognition measure individual differences in cognitive processes, such as processing speed, working memory capacity, and executive functions, that may underlie general intelligence. As such, cognitive models allow identifying associations between specific cognitive processes and tracking the effect of experimental interventions [...] Read more.

Mathematical models of cognition measure individual differences in cognitive processes, such as processing speed, working memory capacity, and executive functions, that may underlie general intelligence. As such, cognitive models allow identifying associations between specific cognitive processes and tracking the effect of experimental interventions aimed at the enhancement of intelligence on mediating process parameters. Moreover, cognitive models provide an explicit theoretical formalization of theories regarding specific cognitive processes that may help in overcoming ambiguities in the interpretation of fuzzy verbal theories. In this paper, we give an overview of the advantages of cognitive modeling in intelligence research and present models in the domains of processing speed, working memory, and selective attention that may be of particular interest for intelligence research. Moreover, we provide guidelines for the application of cognitive models in intelligence research, including data collection, the evaluation of model fit, and statistical analyses. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Cognitive Models in Intelligence Research)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

17 pages, 333 KB

Open AccessFeature PaperCommentary

Inequality, Education, Workforce Preparedness, and Complex Problem Solving

by Patrick C. Kyllonen

J. Intell. 2018, 6(3), 33; https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence6030033 - 16 Jul 2018

Cited by 5 | Viewed by 10385

Abstract

Economic inequality has been described as the defining challenge of our time, responsible for a host of potential negative societal and individual outcomes including reduced opportunity, decreased health and life expectancy, and the destabilization of democracy. Education has been proposed as the “great [...] Read more.

Economic inequality has been described as the defining challenge of our time, responsible for a host of potential negative societal and individual outcomes including reduced opportunity, decreased health and life expectancy, and the destabilization of democracy. Education has been proposed as the “great equalizer” that has and can continue to play a role in reducing inequality. One means by which education does so is through the development of complex problem solving skills in students, skills used to solve novel, ill-defined problems in complex, real-world settings. These are highly valued in the workforce and will likely continue to be so in the future workforce. Their importance is evident in results from employer surveys, as well as by their inclusion in large scale international and domestic comparative assessments. In this paper, I review various definitions of complex problem solving and approaches for measuring it, along with findings from PISA 2003, 2012, and 2015. I also discuss prospects for teaching, assessing, and reporting on it, and discuss the emerging importance of collaborative problem solving. Developing and monitoring complex problem solving skills, broadly defined, is a critical challenge in preparing students for the future workforce, and in overcoming the negative effects of inequality and the diminishment of individual opportunity. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue If Intelligence Is Truly Important to Real-World Adaptation, and IQs Have Risen 30+ Points in the Past Century (Flynn Effect), then Why Are There So Many Unresolved and Dramatic Problems in the World, and What Can Be Done About It?)

26 pages, 633 KB

Open AccessReview

Ability Tests Measure Personality, Personality Tests Measure Ability: Disentangling Construct and Method in Evaluating the Relationship between Personality and Ability

by Patrick C. Kyllonen and Harrison Kell

J. Intell. 2018, 6(3), 32; https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence6030032 - 10 Jul 2018

Cited by 20 | Viewed by 19425

Abstract

Although personality and cognitive ability are separate (sets of) constructs, we argue and demonstrate in this article that their effects are difficult to tease apart, because personality affects the performance on cognitive tests and cognitive ability affects the item responses on personality assessments. [...] Read more.

Although personality and cognitive ability are separate (sets of) constructs, we argue and demonstrate in this article that their effects are difficult to tease apart, because personality affects the performance on cognitive tests and cognitive ability affects the item responses on personality assessments. Cognitive ability is typically measured with tests of items with correct answers; personality is typically measured with rating-scale self-reports. Oftentimes conclusions regarding the personality–ability relationship have as much to do with measurement methods as with the construct similarities and differences. In this article, we review key issues that touch on the relationship between cognitive ability and personality. These include the construct-method distinction, sources of test score variance, the maximal vs. typical performance distinction, and the special role for motivation in low-stakes testing. We review a general response model for cognitive and personality tests that recognizes those sources of test score variance. We then review the approaches for measuring personality through performance (objective personality tests, grit game, coding speed, economic preferences, and confidence), test and survey behavior (survey effort, response time, and item position effects), and real-world behavior (study time, registration latency, behavior residue, and social media). We also discuss ability effects on personality tests, indicated by age and cognitive ability effects, anchoring vignette rating errors, and instructions to ‘fake good’. We conclude with a discussion of the implications for our understanding of personality and ability differences, and suggestions for integrating the fields. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Ability-Personality Integration)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

12 pages, 607 KB

Open AccessArticle

The Dissociation between Adult Intelligence and Personality with Respect to Maltreatment Episodes and Externalizing Behaviors Occurring in Childhood

by Carmen Flores-Mendoza, Sergio Escorial, Oscar Herrero and Roberto Colom

J. Intell. 2018, 6(3), 31; https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence6030031 - 9 Jul 2018

Cited by 3 | Viewed by 8750

Abstract

Here we analyze the simultaneous relationships among five variables. Two refer to childhood (episodes of various forms of maltreatment and externalizing behaviors), whereas three refer to early adulthood (intelligence, personality, and socialization difficulties). The 120 individuals considered for the present report were invited [...] Read more.

Here we analyze the simultaneous relationships among five variables. Two refer to childhood (episodes of various forms of maltreatment and externalizing behaviors), whereas three refer to early adulthood (intelligence, personality, and socialization difficulties). The 120 individuals considered for the present report were invited from the 650 schoolchildren participating in the Longitudinal Study of Intelligence and Personality (Minas Gerais, Brazil). The complete sample was recruited in 2002 (T1; mean age = 10.0; standard deviation (SD) = 2.2) and 120 were tested again in 2014-17 (T2; mean age = 23.5; SD = 2.2). Externalizing behaviors were registered at T1, whereas the remaining variables were obtained at T2. These were the main results: (1) externalizing behaviors predict future social effectiveness (as estimated by the general factor of personality derived from the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO-PI-R) and socialization difficulties computed from the socialization scale (SOC)) and future intelligence performance (as assessed by a set of fluid and crystallized tests); (2) episodes of self-reported childhood maltreatment predict social effectiveness, but not intelligence; (3) maltreatment and externalizing behaviors are unrelated; and (4) social effectiveness (personality) and intelligence are unrelated. Therefore, the findings support the dissociation between adult intelligence and personality with respect to maltreatment episodes and externalizing behaviors occurring in childhood. Implications of these findings for social policies aimed at preventing adult socially ineffective personalities are underscored. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Ability-Personality Integration)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

38 pages, 4052 KB

Open AccessArticle

The Relation of Personality and Intelligence—What Can the Brunswik Symmetry Principle Tell Us?

by André Kretzschmar, Marion Spengler, Anna-Lena Schubert, Ricarda Steinmayr and Matthias Ziegler

J. Intell. 2018, 6(3), 30; https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence6030030 - 3 Jul 2018

Cited by 55 | Viewed by 13459

Abstract

Personality and intelligence are defined as hierarchical constructs, ranging from broad g-factors to (domain-)specific constructs. The present study investigated whether different combinations of hierarchical levels lead to different personality-intelligence correlations. Based on the integrative data analysis approach, we combined a total of [...] Read more.

Personality and intelligence are defined as hierarchical constructs, ranging from broad g-factors to (domain-)specific constructs. The present study investigated whether different combinations of hierarchical levels lead to different personality-intelligence correlations. Based on the integrative data analysis approach, we combined a total of five data sets. The focus of the first study (N = 682) was an elaborated measurement of personality (NEO-PI-R), which was applied with a relatively short intelligence test (Intelligence Structure Test 2000 R). In the second study (N = 413), a comprehensive measurement of intelligence (Berlin Intelligence Structure test) was used with a shorter personality questionnaire (NEO-FFI). In line with the Brunswik symmetry principle, the findings emphasize that personality-intelligence correlations varied greatly across the hierarchical levels of constructs considered in the analysis. On average, Openness showed the largest relation with intelligence. We recommend for future studies to investigate personality-intelligence relations at more fine-grained levels based on elaborated measurements of both personality and intelligence. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Ability-Personality Integration)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

Journal Menu

Journal Browser

J. Intell., Volume 6, Issue 3 (September 2018) – 15 articles

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI