Lang et al. (2010) This study was daunting to read and try to glean some value from. I see how for researchers and methodologists, it is important what theoretical perspective you choose – here the Spearmanian perspective or the nested factors model – and then what analysis you use, incremental validity or relative importance analysis. The study is trying to shed light on an important I/O topic – the role of general mental ability in predicting job performance and whether it is an underlying cause of narrower cognitive abilities or not. I get the finding that depending on job complexity, GMA was not always the relatively most important predictor in analysis, that GMA and a couple of narrower cognitive abilities were about equally important. I also learned that GMA is evaluated less favorably than other selection approaches like interviews, resumes, and work sample tests (importance of applicant reactions).
Lang et al. brought up one point in the discussion that I thought about while reading the article about applicant perceptions of narrower cognitive ability measures. While they suggested that applicants might more favorably perceive narrower cognitive ability measures than a general mental ability measure, I’m not sure there would be much of a difference. In addition, what methods might we use to explain a nested factors model of intelligence to an organization?
In selection, do specialists take into account the complexity of a job? The article found that GMA was only a strong and important predictor for high-complex jobs. This seems to be an important finding in the nested-factors model view.
As I was reading this article, I started to think about a news story I heard on NPR about the decision to revive or abandoned the (dwindling) labor section of the economy. As America becomes a more knowledge based economic system it would seem general mental ability tests would also rise in importance. As most of the traditional labor jobs are absent from the economy, how do selection specialists deal with selecting low complexity, labor jobs? How do skilled laborers who may not have the best general mental ability fair in our knowledge based society?
Do you think feelings of procedural justice will be greater for narrower cognitive abilities or for GMA? Should we even be concerned about applicants feelings of procedural justice?
Toward Roni: I’m comfortable understanding this article conceptually, but could you please break down how we would actually apply this? It definitely seems useful – maybe need to read it a second time…
GMA is relatively more important in high-complexity jobs, and relatively less important in low-complexity jobs. This seems to support the view that GMA is a suitable test for high-complexity jobs, but what is a suitable substitute when job complexity is low?
Lang et al. (2010)
ReplyDeleteThis study was daunting to read and try to glean some value from.
I see how for researchers and methodologists, it is important what theoretical perspective you choose – here the Spearmanian perspective or the nested factors model – and then what analysis you use, incremental validity or relative importance analysis.
The study is trying to shed light on an important I/O topic – the role of general mental ability in predicting job performance and whether it is an underlying cause of narrower cognitive abilities or not. I get the finding that depending on job complexity, GMA was not always the relatively most important predictor in analysis, that GMA and a couple of narrower cognitive abilities were about equally important. I also learned that GMA is evaluated less favorably than other selection approaches like interviews, resumes, and work sample tests (importance of applicant reactions).
Lang et al. brought up one point in the discussion that I thought about while reading the article about applicant perceptions of narrower cognitive ability measures. While they suggested that applicants might more favorably perceive narrower cognitive ability measures than a general mental ability measure, I’m not sure there would be much of a difference. In addition, what methods might we use to explain a nested factors model of intelligence to an organization?
ReplyDeleteIn selection, do specialists take into account the complexity of a job? The article found that GMA was only a strong and important predictor for high-complex jobs. This seems to be an important finding in the nested-factors model view.
ReplyDeleteAs I was reading this article, I started to think about a news story I heard on NPR about the decision to revive or abandoned the (dwindling) labor section of the economy. As America becomes a more knowledge based economic system it would seem general mental ability tests would also rise in importance. As most of the traditional labor jobs are absent from the economy, how do selection specialists deal with selecting low complexity, labor jobs? How do skilled laborers who may not have the best general mental ability fair in our knowledge based society?
ReplyDeleteDo you think feelings of procedural justice will be greater for narrower cognitive abilities or for GMA? Should we even be concerned about applicants feelings of procedural justice?
ReplyDeleteToward Roni: I’m comfortable understanding this article conceptually, but could you please break down how we would actually apply this? It definitely seems useful – maybe need to read it a second time…
ReplyDeleteGMA is relatively more important in high-complexity jobs, and relatively less important in low-complexity jobs. This seems to support the view that GMA is a suitable test for high-complexity jobs, but what is a suitable substitute when job complexity is low?
ReplyDelete