The DOI matches its Crossref record; 234 of the 234 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Great Debate
Open accessAbstract
There are many different theories of intelligence. Although these theories differ in their nuances, nearly all agree that there are multiple cognitive abilities and that they differ in the breadth of content they are typically associated with. There is much less agreement about the relative importance of cognitive abilities of differing generality for predicting important real-world outcomes, such as educational achievement, career success, job performance, and health. Some investigators believe that narrower abilities hold little predictive power once general abilities have been accounted for. Other investigators contend that specific abilities are often as—or even more—effective in forecasting many practical variables as general abilities. These disagreements often turn on differences of theory and methodology that are both subtle and complex. The five cutting-edge contributions in this volume, both empirical and theoretical, advance the conversation in this vigorous, and highly important, scientific debate.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Citations
Cites
R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing
R Core Team (2000) · doi:10.32614/r.manuals · Cited by 355,893
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999) · Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1080/10705519909540118 · Cited by 108,788
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
Muller, K. E., & Cohen, J. (1989) · Technometrics · doi:10.2307/1270020 · Cited by 99,603
Cortes, C., & Vapnik, V. (1995) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1007/bf00994018 · Cited by 59,421
Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992) · Sociological Methods & Research · doi:10.1177/0049124192021002005 · Cited by 27,200
Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0046016 · Cited by 17,116
The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit formation
Yerkes, R. M., & Dodson, J. D. (1908) · Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology · doi:10.1002/cne.920180503 · Cited by 6,911
"General Intelligence," Objectively Determined and Measured
Spearman, C. (1904) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.2307/1412107 · Cited by 6,207
Madison, P., & Mischel, W. (1968) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.2307/1421067 · Cited by 4,395
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.124.2.262 · Cited by 4,180
Cited by
Still being checked.
Metadata
- Authors
- Kell, H. J., & Lang, J. W. B.
- Affiliations
- Educational Testing Service (US)
- Leuphana University of Lüneburg (DE)
- Venue
- MDPI eBooks
- Publisher
- MDPI
- Published
- 2019-07-26
- OpenAlex
- W4231203069
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 233
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by-nc-nd
- Locations
- MDPI eBooks (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Directory of Open access Books (OAPEN Foundation) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (1620457)
- Mensa Education and Research Foundation
- Educational Testing Service
- Vanderbilt University
- Peabody College
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Cognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills
- Keywords
- intelligence theory, general intelligence, specific abilities, cognitive ability, academic performance, career success, employee performance, health prediction
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