Where I-O psychology should really (re)start its investigation of intelligence constructs and their measurement
We believe that Scherbaum, Goldstein, Yusko, Ryan, and Hanges (2012) come up short in (a) their portrayal of the current understanding of the nature of intelligence as it exists in the science of mental abilities and (b) their treatment of the measurement of intelligence constructs. We argue that th...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | text |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
2012
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/lkcsb_research/5615 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/lkcsb_research/article/6614/viewcontent/IOP.pdf |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Institution: | Singapore Management University |
| Language: | English |
| Summary: | We believe that Scherbaum, Goldstein, Yusko, Ryan, and Hanges (2012) come up short in (a) their portrayal of the current understanding of the nature of intelligence as it exists in the science of mental abilities and (b) their treatment of the measurement of intelligence constructs. We argue that their view on the nature of intelligence is outdated and that measuring constructs within the domain of intelligence should not be equated only with the use of traditional cognitive ability tests as alternative workbased measures of intelligence constructs have emerged and are in dire need of empirical scrutiny. |
|---|