Cited by 206Cognitive Abilities and TestingEmployer Branding and e-HRMMedical Education and Admissions

The predictive validity of cognitive ability tests: A UK meta‐analysis

Bertua, Cristina, Anderson, Neil, Salgado, Jesús F.·2005·Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology

Abstract

A meta‐analysis on the validity of tests of general mental ability (GMA) and specific cognitive abilities for predicting job performance and training success in the UK was conducted. An extensive literature search resulted in a database of 283 independent samples with job performance as the criterion ( N =13,262), and 223 with training success as the criterion ( N =75,311). Primary studies were also coded by occupational group, resulting in seven main groups (clerical, engineer, professional, driver, operator, manager, and sales), and by type of specific ability test (verbal, numerical, perceptual, and spatial). Results indicate that GMA and specific ability tests are valid predictors of both job performance and training success, with operational validities in the magnitude of .5–.6. Minor differences between these UK findings and previous US meta‐analyses are reported. As expected, operational validities were moderated by occupational group, with occupational families possessing greater job complexity demonstrating higher operational validities between cognitive tests and job performance and training success. Implications for the practical use of tests of GMA and specific cognitive abilities in the context of UK selection practices are discussed in conclusion.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1348/096317905x26994

Cites

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?

  • Cognitive ability tests (CATs) are used in employee selection and recruitment because they predict workplace performance.

    “Cognitive ability tests (CATs) are used as part of selection and recruitment due to their utility in predicting workplace performance (Bertua et al., 2005;Sackett et al., 2022;Schmidt & Hunter, 1998)”

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 89 · Cited by 206

Authors
Bertua, C., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F.
Affiliations
  • University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • Universidade de Santiago de Compostela (ES)
Corresponding author
Anderson, Neil
Venue
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-09
Volume
78
Issue
3
Pages
387-409
ISSN
  • 0963-1798 (ISSN-L)
  • 2044-8325
OpenAlex
W2124147684
Cited by
206
References
89
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 8
FWCI
10.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Employer Branding and e-HRM
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Medical Education and Admissions
Keywords
predictive validity, job performance prediction, training success, personnel selection, job complexity, verbal ability, numerical ability, perceptual skills, spatial ability

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