Cited by 19Cognitive Abilities and TestingHuman Resource Development and Performance EvaluationVocational Education and Training

Group differences in the role of g and prior job knowledge in the acquisition of subsequent job knowledge

Carretta, Thomas R., Doub, Thomas W.·1998·Personality and Individual Differences

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0191-8869(97)00210-9

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Carretta, T. R., & Doub, T. W.
Affiliations
United States Air Force Research Laboratory (US)
Corresponding author
Carretta, Thomas R.
Venue
Personality and Individual Differences
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1998-05
Volume
24
Issue
5
Pages
585-593
ISSN
0191-8869 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2015239893
Cited by
19
References
22
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2013: 2
FWCI
0.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Personality and Individual Differences (publishedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Department of Defense
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Human Resource Development and Performance Evaluation
  • Social Sciences › Education › Vocational Education and Training
Keywords
general intelligence, ability, technical training, gender differences, racial differences, Black workers, Hispanic workers, women

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review