The Great Debate: General Ability and Specific Abilities in the Prediction of Important Outcomes

There are many different theories of intelligence. Although these theories differ in their nuances, nearly all agree that there are multiple cognitive abilities and that they differ in the breadth of content they are typically associated with. There is much less agreement about the relative importan...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Lang, Jonas (auth)
Other Authors: Kell, Harrison J. (auth)
Format: Book Chapter
Published: MDPI - Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute 2019
Subjects:
Online Access:Get Fullteks
DOAB: description of the publication
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
LEADER 03567naaaa2200757uu 4500
001 doab_20_500_12854_48877
005 20210211
020 |a books978-3-03921-168-5 
020 |a 9783039211685 
020 |a 9783039211678 
024 7 |a 10.3390/books978-3-03921-168-5  |c doi 
041 0 |a English 
042 |a dc 
100 1 |a Lang, Jonas  |4 auth 
700 1 |a Kell, Harrison J.  |4 auth 
245 1 0 |a The Great Debate: General Ability and Specific Abilities in the Prediction of Important Outcomes 
260 |b MDPI - Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute  |c 2019 
300 |a 1 electronic resource (108 p.) 
506 0 |a Open Access  |2 star  |f Unrestricted online access 
520 |a There are many different theories of intelligence. Although these theories differ in their nuances, nearly all agree that there are multiple cognitive abilities and that they differ in the breadth of content they are typically associated with. There is much less agreement about the relative importance of cognitive abilities of differing generality for predicting important real-world outcomes, such as educational achievement, career success, job performance, and health. Some investigators believe that narrower abilities hold little predictive power once general abilities have been accounted for. Other investigators contend that specific abilities are often as-or even more-effective in forecasting many practical variables as general abilities. These disagreements often turn on differences of theory and methodology that are both subtle and complex. The five cutting-edge contributions in this volume, both empirical and theoretical, advance the conversation in this vigorous, and highly important, scientific debate. 
540 |a Creative Commons  |f https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/  |2 cc  |4 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 
546 |a English 
653 |a general cognitive ability 
653 |a second stratum abilities 
653 |a narrow abilities 
653 |a cognitive abilities 
653 |a ability tilt 
653 |a identification 
653 |a occupational attainment 
653 |a scholastic performance 
653 |a longevity 
653 |a non-g residuals 
653 |a specific abilities 
653 |a higher-order factor model 
653 |a bifactor model 
653 |a intelligence 
653 |a general intelligence (g) 
653 |a specific factors 
653 |a academic achievement 
653 |a hierarchical factor model 
653 |a educational attainment 
653 |a nested-factor models 
653 |a ability differentiation 
653 |a general abilities 
653 |a relative importance 
653 |a relative importance analysis 
653 |a bifactor(S-1) model 
653 |a subscores 
653 |a g-factor 
653 |a school grades 
653 |a non-g factors 
653 |a nested-factors model 
653 |a general mental ability 
653 |a cognitive tests 
653 |a specific cognitive abilities 
653 |a curvilinear relations 
653 |a specific ability 
653 |a situational specificity 
653 |a predictor-criterion bandwidth alignment 
653 |a job performance 
653 |a health 
653 |a machine learning 
653 |a academic performance 
653 |a general factor 
856 4 0 |a www.oapen.org  |u https://mdpi.com/books/pdfview/book/1446  |7 0  |z Get Fullteks 
856 4 0 |a www.oapen.org  |u https://directory.doabooks.org/handle/20.500.12854/48877  |7 0  |z DOAB: description of the publication