Reconsidering the search for alternatives to general mental ability tests

Jeffrey M. Cucina

Intelligence, 2025, vol. 109, issue C

Abstract: Cognitive ability tests that measure general mental ability (g-tests) are among the best predictors of academic, training, and job performance. One disadvantage of g-tests is the potential for adverse impact due to subgroup differences on general mental ability (g). For many years, psychologists have searched for high-validity low-adverse impact alternatives to traditional g-loaded cognitive ability tests (g-tests). This paper explores the mathematical possibility of developing such a test based on the known characteristics of g-tests. It was discovered that superior replacements to g-tests cannot mathematically exist. This is due to the fact that adverse impact and subgroup differences occur primarily on g rather than the specific factors and unique variance that cognitive ability tests measure. The reliable non-g variance in most g-tests is too small to offset the subgroup differences in g-test scores that is attributable to g.

Keywords: Cognitive ability tests; General mental ability tests; Criterion-related validity; Alternatives; Subgroup differences; Adverse impact (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2025
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289624000862
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:intell:v:109:y:2025:i:c:s0160289624000862

DOI: 10.1016/j.intell.2024.101892

Access Statistics for this article

Intelligence is currently edited by R.J. Haier

More articles in Intelligence from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().