Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T07:01:07.934Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Determinacy and Predictive Power of Common Factors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 October 2015

James J. Lee  and
Nathan R. Kuncel
James J. Lee*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota—Twin Cities
Nathan R. Kuncel
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota—Twin Cities
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to James J. Lee, Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota—Twin Cities, N409 Elliott Hall, 75 East River Parkway, Minneapolis, MN 55455. E-mail: leex2293@umn.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Ree, Carretta, and Teachout's (2015) arguments for recognizing the importance of general factors are mostly on point, but they neglect two broad issues: (a) an important theoretical problem introduced by the presence of multiple factors (general, group, specific) and (b) the criterion validity of group factors in certain settings.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , September 2015 , pp. 467 - 472
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Brunner, M., Nagy, G., & Wilhelm, O. (2012). A tutorial on hierarchically structured constructs. Journal of Personality, 80, 796–846.Google Scholar
Cook, L. L., Dorans, N. J., & Eignor, D. R. (1988). An assessment of the dimensionality of three SAT-Verbal test editions. Journal of Educational Statistics, 13, 19–43.Google Scholar
Gohm, C. L., Humphreys, L. G., & Yao, G. (1998). Underachievement among spatially gifted students. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 515–531.Google Scholar
Guttman, L. (1955). The determinacy of factor score matrices with implications for five other basic problems of common-factor theory. British Journal of Statistical Psychology, 8, 65–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuncel, N. R., Hezlett, S. A., & Ones, D. S. (2001). A comprehensive meta-analysis of the predictive validity of the Graduate Record Examinations: Implications for graduate student selection and performance. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 162–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuncel, N. R., Hezlett, S. A., & Ones, D. S. (2004). Academic performance, career potential, creativity, and job performance: Can one construct predict them all? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 148–161.Google Scholar
Lee, J. J. (2012). Correlation and causation in the study of personality (with discussion). European Journal of Personality, 26, 372–412.Google Scholar
McCornack, R. L. (1956). A criticism of studies comparing item-weighting methods. Journal of Applied Psychology, 40, 343–344.Google Scholar
McDonald, R. P. (2003). Behavior domains in theory and in practice. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 49, 212–230.Google Scholar
McDonald, R. P., & Mulaik, S. A. (1979). Determinacy of common factors: A nontechnical review. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 297–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meehl, P. E. (1993). Four queries about factor reality. History and Philosophy of Psychology Bulletin, 5, 4–5.Google Scholar
Park, G., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2007). Contrasting intellectual patterns predict creativity in the arts and sciences: Tracking intellectually precocious youth over 25 years. Psychological Science, 18, 948–952.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ree, M. J., Carretta, T. R., & Teachout, M. S. (2015). Pervasiveness of dominant general factors in organizational measurement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 8 (3), 409–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segall, D. O. (2001). General ability measurement: An application of multidimensional item response theory. Psychometrika, 66, 79–97.Google Scholar