CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 195Cognitive Abilities and TestingPsychometric Methodologies and TestingPersonality Traits and Psychology

Assessing individual differences in knowledge: Knowledge, intelligence, and related traits.

Rolfhus, Eric L., Ackerman, Phillip L.·1999·Journal of Educational Psychology
DOI 10.1037/0022-0663.91.3.511
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Twenty academic knowledge tests were developed to locate domain knowledge within a nomological network of traits. Spatial, numerical, and verbal aptitude measures and personality and interest measures were administered to 141 undergraduates. Domain knowledge factored along curricular lines; a general knowledge factor accounted for about half of knowledge variance. Domain knowledge exhibited positive relations with general intelligence (g), verbal abilities after g was removed, Openness, Typical Intellectual engagement, and specific vocational interests. Spatial and numerical abilities were unrelated to knowledge beyond g. Extraversion related negatively to all knowledge domains. Results provide broad support for R. B. Cattell's (1971/1987) crystallized intelligence as something more than verbal abilities and specific support for P. L. Ackerman's (1996) intelligence-asprocess, personality, interests, and intelligence-as-knowledge theory of adult intelligence.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0022-0663.91.3.511

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Studies published since Ackerman and Heggestad's meta-analysis suggest a negative relationship between extraversion and intelligence.

    “Several studies (Ackerman, 2000; Ackerman, Bowen, Beier, & Kanfer, 2001; Ackerman & Rolfhus, 1999; Furnham, Forde, & Cotter, 1998; Roberts, 2002; Rolfhus & Ackerman, 1999) since the meta-analysis suggest the opposite trend – a negative relationship between extraversion and intelligence.”

    From Extraversion and intelligence: A meta-analytic investigation (2005) · cites this paper as Rolfhus & Ackerman, 1999

  • Rolfhus and Ackerman (1999) found that extraversion was significantly negatively correlated with all but one of twenty domain knowledge scales.

    “Rolfhus and Ackerman found that extraversion was significantly negatively correlated with all but one of twenty domain knowledge scales (see Table 3).”

    From Extraversion and intelligence: A meta-analytic investigation (2005) · cites this paper as Rolfhus & Ackerman, 1999

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rolfhus, E. L., & Ackerman, P. L.
Affiliations
Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
ORCID
Ackerman, Phillip L.
Venue
Journal of Educational Psychology
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
1999-09
Volume
91
Issue
3
Pages
511-526
ISSN
  • 0022-0663 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2176
DOI
10.1037/0022-0663.91.3.511
OpenAlex
W2090749585
Cited by
195
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 12
FWCI
6.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Educational Psychology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
Keywords
domain knowledge, general knowledge, crystallized intelligence, general intelligence, verbal ability, spatial ability, numerical ability, personality traits, openness to experience, extraversion, career interest

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