Woodcock-Johnson-III, Kaufman Adolescent and Adult Intelligence Test (KAIT), Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (KABC), and Differential Ability Scales (DAS) support Carroll but not Cattell-Horn.

Recently emerging evidence suggests that the dominant structural model of mental abilities-the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) model-may not adequately account for observed scores for mental abilities batteries, leading scholars to call into question the model's validity. Establishing the robustness of these findings is important since CHC is the foundation for several contemporary mental abilities test batteries, such as the Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ-III). Using confirmatory factor analysis, we investigated CHC's robustness across 4 archival samples of mental abilities test battery data, including the WJ-III, the Kaufman Adolescent & Adult Intelligence Test (KAIT), the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (KABC), and the Differential Ability Scales (DAS). We computed omega hierarchical (ωH) and omega subscale (ωS) coefficients for g and the broad factors, which estimated the relationship of composite scores to g and the broad factors, respectively. Across all 4 samples, we found strong evidence for a general ability, g. We additionally found evidence for 3 to 9 residualized, orthogonal broad abilities existing independently of g, many of which also explained reliable variance in test battery scores that cannot be accounted for by g alone. The reliabilities of these broad factors, however, were less than desirable (i.e., <.80) and achieving desirable reliabilities would be practically infeasible (e.g., requiring excessively large numbers of subtests). Our results, and those of CHC critics, are wholly consistent with Carroll's model. Essentially, both g and orthogonal broad abilities are required to explain variance in mental abilities test battery scores, which is consistent with Carroll but not Cattell-Horn. (PsycINFO Database Record

Self-serving bias effects on job analysis ratings.

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether worker-oriented job analysis importance ratings were influenced by subject matter experts' (SME) standing (as measured by self-rated performance) on a competency. This type of relationship (whereby SMEs indicate that the traits they have are important for successful job performance) is an example of the self-serving bias (which is widely described in the social cognition literature and rarely described in the industrial/organizational psychology literature). An archival dataset covering 57 clerical and technical occupations with 26,682 participants was used. Support was found for the relationship between self-rated performance and importance ratings. Significant relationships (typically in the .30s) were observed for all 31 competencies that were studied. Controls were taken to account for common method bias and differences in the competencies required for each of the 57 occupations. Past research has demonstrated the effects of the self-serving bias on personality-based job analysis ratings. This study was the first to extend these findings to traditional job analysis, which covers other competencies in addition to personality. In addition, this study is the first to use operational field data instead of laboratory data.

Do warnings of response verification moderate the relationship between personality and cognitive ability?

This article presents the results of 2 studies that examine the effect of presenting a warning of response verification by others on the relationship between measures of personality and cognitive ability. In both a field study and a laboratory study, stronger correlations were generally found between measures of personality and cognitive ability when a warning of verification was present. The results from the studies also showed that the warning of verification was associated with slower item response latencies for certain personality scales, suggesting that exposure to the warning increased the complexity of the response decision. Results are discussed in terms of the effects of altering test instructions on the construct validity of personality measures used in applied settings.

Nonlinear personality-performance relationships and the spurious moderating effects of traitedness.

This article evaluated the validity of two traditional traitedness measures (i.e., standard deviation traitedness measures and global, single-item traitedness measures) and three new traitedness measures (i.e., multi-item, ranking, and facet traitedness measures). Overall, there was poor construct validity for both the traditional and new measures of traitedness. Furthermore, traitedness was a spurious moderator of the relationship between openness to experience and academic performance. Finally, evidence of nonlinear personality-academic performance relationships was discovered.