The predictive validity of cognitive ability tests: A UK meta‐analysis
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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)”
From Factors Related to Mean Score Group Differences on Cognitive Ability Tests: A Systematic Review (2025) · cites this paper as Bertua et al., 2005
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