Cognitive-Components Tests Are Not Much More Than g: An Extension of Kyllonen's Analyses

Abstract A battery of 10 traditional paper-and-pencil aptitude tests and a battery of 25 cognitive-components-based tests were administered to 298 men and women to investigate the common sources of variance in those batteries. Earlier confirmatory factor analyses showed each battery to have a hierarchical structure, each with a single higher order factor. The higher order factor in the paper-and-pencil battery had previously been identified as general cognitive ability, or g. The higher order factor from the cognitive-components battery had been identified as working memory. The intercorrelation of the higher order factors from the two batteries was .994, indicating that both measured g. The proportion of common variance because of g was greater in the cognitive-components battery than in the paper-and-pencil battery. The correlations between each factor based on cognitive components and g averaged .946. Despite theoretical foundations and arguments, cognitive components tests appear to measure much the s...

[1]  P. Bentler,et al.  Comparative fit indexes in structural models. , 1990, Psychological bulletin.

[2]  Toni G. Wegner,et al.  Correcting Differences in Answer Sheets for the 1980 Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery Reference Population , 1990 .

[3]  Malcolm James Ree,et al.  Intelligence Is the Best Predictor of Job Performance , 1992 .

[4]  A. Jensen,et al.  What is a good g , 1994 .

[5]  Thomas R. Carretta,et al.  Factor Analysis of the Asvab: Confirming a Vernon-Like Structure , 1994 .

[6]  Thomas R. Carretta,et al.  Correlation of General Cognitive Ability and Psychomotor Tracking Tests. , 1994 .

[7]  T R Carretta,et al.  Prediction of situational awareness in F-15 pilots. , 1996, The International journal of aviation psychology.

[8]  R. Herrnstein,et al.  The bell curve : intelligence and class structure in American life , 1995 .

[9]  M. Browne,et al.  Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit , 1992 .

[10]  P. Vernon.  Intelligence and cultural environment , 1969 .

[11]  Quinn McNemar,et al.  Lost: Our intelligence? Why? , 1964 .

[12]  Arthur R. Jensen,et al.  Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery. , 1985 .

[13]  R. P. McDonald,et al.  Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis : The effect of sample size , 1988 .

[14]  J. Hunter,et al.  Validity and Utility of Alternative Predictors of Job Performance , 1984 .

[15]  Dennis Doverspike,et al.  Validation of an information-processing-based test battery for the prediction of handling accidents among petroleum-product transport drivers , 1990 .

[16]  M. Ree,et al.  Sign changes when correcting for range restriction: A note on Pearson's and Lawley's selection formulas. , 1994 .

[17]  D. Lawley.  IV.—A Note on Karl Pearson's Selection Formulæ , 1944, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. Section A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences.

[18]  Malcolm James Ree,et al.  Factor Structure of the Air Force Officer Qualifying Test: Analysis and Comparison. , 1996 .

[19]  T R Carretta,et al.  Central role of g in military pilot selection. , 1996, The International journal of aviation psychology.

[20]  P. Ackerman,et al.  INTEGRATING LABORATORY AND FIELD STUDY FOR IMPROVING SELECTION: DEVELOPMENT OF A BATTERY FOR PREDICTING AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLER SUCCESS , 1993 .

[21]  A. Jensen,et al.  Bias in Mental Testing , 1980 .

[22]  Patrick C. Kyllonen,et al.  Aptitude Testing Inspired by Information Processing: A Test of the Four-Sources Model , 1993 .

[23]  Delwyn L. Harnisch,et al.  Corrections for range restriction: An empirical investigation of conditions resulting in conservative corrections. , 1981 .