The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
INTERNATIONAL VALIDITY GENERALIZATION OF GMA AND COGNITIVE ABILITIES: A EUROPEAN COMMUNITY META‐ANALYSIS
Abstract
This article reports on a series of meta‐analyses into the criterion validity of general menatl ability (GMA) and specific cognitive ability tests for predicting job performance ratings and training success in the European Community (EC). Meta‐analyses were computed on a large EC database examining the operational validity of GMA and other specific cognitive abilities, including verbal, numerical, spatial‐mechanical, perceptual and memory (N ranged from 946 to 16,065) across 10 EC member countries. The results showed that tests of GMA and specific cognitive ability are very good predictors of job performance and training success across the EC. Evidence for the international validity generalization of GMA and specific cognitive abilities was presented. The results for the EC meta‐analyses showed a larger operational validity than previous meta‐analyses in the U.S. for predicting job performance. For training success, the European and American results are very similar. Implications for the international generalizability of GMA test validities, practical use of cognitive ability tests for personnel selection, and directions for future research are discussed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.124.2.262 · Cited by 4,180
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001) · International Journal of Selection and Assessment · doi:10.1111/1468-2389.00160 · Cited by 2,356
Kuncel, N. R., Hezlett, S. A., & Ones, D. S. (2001) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.127.1.162 · Cited by 639
Measurement error in psychological research: Lessons from 26 research scenarios.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1996) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.1.2.199 · Cited by 567
Comparability of GATB scores for immigrants and majority group members: Some Dutch findings.
te Nijenhuis, J., & van der Flier, H. (1997) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.5.675 · Cited by 67
Cited by
Consequences of Age-Related Cognitive Declines
Salthouse, T. (2012) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100328 · Cited by 818
Emotional intelligence: Not much more than g and personality
Schulte, M. J., Ree, M. J., & Carretta, T. R. (2004) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2003.11.014 · Cited by 242
The predictive validity of cognitive ability tests: A UK meta‐analysis
Bertua, C., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2005) · Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.1348/096317905x26994 · Cited by 206
Self-citationSCHMIDT, F. L., SHAFFER, J. A., & OH, I. (2008) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00132.x · Cited by 190
Becoming an evidence-based HR practitioner
Rousseau, D. M., & Barends, E. G. R. (2011) · Human Resource Management Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1748-8583.2011.00173.x · Cited by 168
Metadata
- Authors
- SALGADO, J. F., ANDERSON, N., MOSCOSO, S., BERTUA, C., & DE FRUYT, F.
- Venue
- Personnel Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2003-09
- Volume
- 56
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 573-605
- ISSN
- 0031-5826 (ISSN-L)
- 1744-6570
- OpenAlex
- W2052090073
- Cited by
- 238
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 16.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: INTERNATIONAL VALIDITY GENERALIZATION OF GMA AND COGNITIVE ABILITIES: A EUROPEAN COMMUNITY META‐ANALYSIS. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00751.x
- The paper
- SALGADO, J. F., ANDERSON, N., MOSCOSO, S., BERTUA, C., & DE FRUYT, F. (2003). INTERNATIONAL VALIDITY GENERALIZATION OF GMA AND COGNITIVE ABILITIES: A EUROPEAN COMMUNITY META‐ANALYSIS. Personnel Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00751.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
