ObjectiveThis study sought to investigate if the constructs measured by the MAB II and the MicroCog are related. The similarity of two tests designed using two theories was examined. BackgroundDistinctions between tests of general cognitive ability (g) versus specific abilities (s) have been investigated for over a century. The Multidimensional Aptitude Battery used the individual differences psychometric approach while the MicroCog used a brain-behavior relationships approach. The authors of the tests claim they measure differing constructs based on differing theories; individual differences versus brain-behavior relations. MethodsBoth tests were administered to 10,612 participants. Correlations suggested the tests shared a common source of variance for the constructs measured. Confirmatory factor analyses established this and established a hierarchical structure with g at the apex. The test designed to measure specific abilities (MicroCog) measured a single factor, g. ResultsAlthough different theories underlie their respective construction methods, results indicated the two tests measured much in common; that is, two theories, one outcome. ConclusionsDespite the assertions of the publishers of the two tests of differences, practitioners gain little by using both tests as they both measure the same constructs.

Data are often available only for recruits, a range-restricted sample. This creates the potential for mistaken inferences and poor decisions. This is because inferences and decisions are about the population, not the sample. Despite these problems, researchers must try to determine statistical values as if the sample was not range-restricted. Although range restriction correction methods have been available for over a century, often they are not applied or are applied incorrectly. Technical psychometric discussions of range restriction have not improved researcher practice. As an alternative, realistic scenarios are presented to illustrate and explain the consequences of (1) failing to correct correlations, (2) using the wrong correction formula, (3) correcting when information about previous selection variables is unavailable, (4) using an inappropriate unrestricted sample, (5) incorrectly computing the confidence interval for corrected correlations, and (6) interpretation of results. Although there are situations under which correction has little effect, correction still provides better estimates of relations among variables. It also improves theoretical understanding and interpretation of real-world results.

Personnel PsychologyEarly View BOOK REVIEW A History of Data Visualization & Graphic Communication, by Michael Friendly and Howard Wainer, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA: 308 pages including references and index. 2021. Reviewed by Malcolm James Ree, Our Lady of the Lake University Malcolm James Ree, Corresponding Author Malcolm James Ree malcolmree@att.net orcid.org/0000-0003-3922-5269 Our Lady of the Lake University, San Antonio, Texas, USA Correspondence Malcolm James Ree, Our Lady of the Lake University, San Antonio, TX 78207, USA. Email: malcolmree@att.netSearch for more papers by this author Malcolm James Ree, Corresponding Author Malcolm James Ree malcolmree@att.net orcid.org/0000-0003-3922-5269 Our Lady of the Lake University, San Antonio, Texas, USA Correspondence Malcolm James Ree, Our Lady of the Lake University, San Antonio, TX 78207, USA. Email: malcolmree@att.netSearch for more papers by this author First published: 09 August 2022 https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12540Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Early ViewOnline Version of Record before inclusion in an issue RelatedInformation

Results of a 30-year research program indicate that specific cognitive abilities (s) provide little or no incremental validity beyond general cognitive ability (g). Definitions of g and s are provided and examples from training and job performance are presented. All samples are large adding to confidence in the results. On average, the increased validity for multiple regressions between using g versus g plus s was 0.02. The weight of the evidence suggests that the increment of 0.02 is an artifact of measurement error. An alternative ability model that fails to separate g and s is presented.

Personnel PsychologyVolume 72, Issue 2 p. 325-326 BOOK REVIEW SECTION Howard Wainer. Truth or truthiness: Distinguishing fact from fiction by learning to think like a data scientist. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2016, 232 pages, $30.95 hardcover Malcolm James Ree, Malcolm James Ree Professor of organizational leadership, Our Lady of the Lake UniversitySearch for more papers by this author Malcolm James Ree, Malcolm James Ree Professor of organizational leadership, Our Lady of the Lake UniversitySearch for more papers by this author First published: 19 April 2019 https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12330Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Volume72, Issue2Summer 2019Pages 325-326 RelatedInformation

Several studies have investigated the relations between cognitive ability and Big Five personality constructs. The present study extended previous research by (a) examining these relationships in large samples (total N = 120,014), (b) including several measures of cognitive ability and personality, (c) examining both domain and facet-level personality scores, (d) expanding the personality domains studied to include Machiavellianism, and (e) correcting the observed correlations for range restriction and reliability to provide a better statistical estimate of the relations between the cognitive and personality scores and constructs. Results were consistent with prior research showing a positive relationship between cognitive ability and Openness and negative relationships between cognitive ability and Neuroticism and Conscientiousness. Negative relations between cognitive ability and Extraversion and Agreeableness also were observed. Machiavellianism, not part of the Big Five was found to have a positive correlation with cognitive ability. Of particular interest was the finding that the relations between cognitive ability and personality were affected by the specific content of the cognitive and personality measures. Cognitive measures with verbal content were more strongly correlated with personality than were cognitive measures with math or nonverbal content for all of the samples. Also, there was considerable variability in the cognitive-personality correlations for the facets underlying each personality domain. The variability in correlations at the facet-level implies that cognitive-personality relationships at the domain-level will vary as a function of the specific content of the cognitive and personality measures. Overall, the results provide support for cognitive-personality association at the measurement level.

Much of the industrial/organizational psychology research literature involves abstractions called constructs. Frequently, new constructs are proposed and measures are developed, revised, and evaluated in studies for modeling or predicting organizational criteria. There are many hazards in these studies that lead to incorrect conclusions and decisions. This is especially applicable to the introduction and use of new constructs. We discuss several methodological issues that affect the interpretation of results from theoretical and applied studies and provide examples where construct confusion occurred due to failure to use best practices. A paradigm is proposed to increase the efficacy of studies regardless of which model of constructs has been chosen. Consideration is given to sample characteristics, range restriction, reliability of scores, criterion development, identifying latent sources of variance, content validity, comparing regression equations, and defining the nomological network.

This book arrived as I was preparing to teach two different courses on research methods. The first was for doctoral students in organizational leadership and the other, for master’s students in ind...

Personnel PsychologyVolume 70, Issue 2 p. 508-509 BOOK REVIEW SECTION Savvas Papacostas. Madness and leadership: From antiquity to the new common error. Edward Elgar Publishing: Northampton, MA, 2015, 243 pages, $120 hardcover. Malcolm James Ree, Malcolm James Ree Professor of Organizational Leadership Our Lady of the Lake University, San Antonio, TXSearch for more papers by this author Malcolm James Ree, Malcolm James Ree Professor of Organizational Leadership Our Lady of the Lake University, San Antonio, TXSearch for more papers by this author First published: 19 April 2017 https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12222Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Volume70, Issue2Summer 2017Pages 508-509 RelatedInformation

Personnel PsychologyVolume 69, Issue 1 p. 302-305 Book Review Section Ofer Sharone. Flawed System Flawed Self: Job Searching and Unemployment Experiences. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2014, 240 pages, $27.50 paperback. Malcolm James Ree, Malcolm James Ree Professor of Organizational Leadership, Our Lady of the Lake University, San Antonio, TXSearch for more papers by this author Malcolm James Ree, Malcolm James Ree Professor of Organizational Leadership, Our Lady of the Lake University, San Antonio, TXSearch for more papers by this author First published: 27 January 2016 https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12131Citations: 1Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume69, Issue1Spring 2016Pages 302-305 RelatedInformation

INTRODUCTION:The assessment of individuals on abilities or other characteristics is based on comparison to a representative sample. General population norms provide an appropriate reference group when the distribution of scores in the sample can be expected to be similar to those for the general population (e.g., comparing high school students at a particular school to national high school norms on a college entrance test). Specialized norms are needed, however, when subsets of the population differ from the population at large. Military pilot trainees represent a special population; they are highly screened on cognitive ability and other characteristics thought to be related to job performance. Other characteristics (e.g., personality) are thought to be "self-selected," resulting in distinctive profiles. Normative tables were developed for U.S. Air Force pilot trainees for two widely used tests, the Multidimensional Aptitude Battery-II (MAB-II) and NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO PI-R).METHODS:The MAB-II and NEO PI-R were administered to large samples of USAF cadets, ROTC students, and officers selected for pilot training.RESULTS:The mean MAB-II full-scale IQ was about 1.5 SD above the adult population norm and was much less variable, supporting the need for specialized norms. Tables showing the percentile equivalents are provided for use by clinicians.DISCUSSION:Use of these tables, in addition to, or in lieu of, commercially published norms, will prove helpful when clinical psychologists perform assessments on pilots; in particular when evaluating them for return-to-duty status following a disqualifying condition that may have affected cognitive functioning or emotional stability. Carretta TR, King RE, Ree MJ, Teachout MS, Barto E. Compilation of cognitive and personality norms for military aviators. Aerosp Med Hum Perform. 2016; 87(9):764-771.

A partial test of a model of training performance variability was conducted. The current study examined variability in cognitive ability and training performance in job‐specific training. Several studies have found mean score differences in cognitive ability across jobs. Further, the variability in training outcomes among individuals within a job has been shown to vary across jobs. Reduced variability in training outcomes is a measure of training effectiveness. For this study data were grouped by job over several years. Participants were 116,310 enlistees enrolled in 108 US Air Force training specialties. Aptitude was measured by a verbal/math composite derived from the US military enlistment test, the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery. Training performance was assessed by written tests of job‐related knowledge content. Predictive validity of the verbal/math composite ranged from .124 to .836 across jobs with a mean weighted value of 0.691. Substantial differences were observed for mean and variability of aptitude across jobs. Trainees in jobs with high aptitude requirements had higher mean aptitude and were less variable on aptitude than those in jobs with lower aptitude requirements. Further, trainees in high aptitude jobs had higher mean training performance scores and were less variable on performance than those in jobs with lower aptitude requirements. Finally, training performance was much less variable than aptitude. Training had the effect of reducing variability among trainees within jobs. This has the effect of producing a more homogenous set of trainees on trained content, which is beneficial to on‐the‐job training. Support was found for a part of the model.

General factors are found in the measurement of many human traits. The concept of dominant general factors (DGFs) is introduced to represent the magnitude of general factors within numerous content domains. DGFs are defined as coming from the largest sources of reliable variance and influencing every variable measuring the construct. Although these factors are most frequently found in measures of cognitive ability, they are not limited to cognitive abilities. Examples are provided for a variety of construct and content domains along with estimates of their DGF percentages, ranging from 38% to 92%. Several reasons for these results are offered, and a call for concerted research is made. Research that ignores DGFs by treating specific factors or constructs within a domain as if they were distinct and uncorrelated can lead to errors in interpretation.

Personnel PsychologyVolume 67, Issue 1 p. 302-304 Book Review Section Lawrence Huberty and Howard Wainer. A Statistical Guide for the Ethically Perplexed. New York, NY: CRC Press, 2013, 565 pages, $49.95 paperback. Correction(s) for this article Erratum Volume 67Issue 3Personnel Psychology pages: 759-759 First Published online: August 25, 2014 Reviewed by Malcolm James Ree, Malcolm James Ree Professor of Organizational Leadership Our Lady of the Lake University, San Antonio, TX, 78207Search for more papers by this author Reviewed by Malcolm James Ree, Malcolm James Ree Professor of Organizational Leadership Our Lady of the Lake University, San Antonio, TX, 78207Search for more papers by this author First published: 06 February 2014 https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12069_4Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Volume67, Issue1Spring 2014Pages 302-304 RelatedInformation

: Distinctions between tests of general cognitive ability (g) versus specific abilities (s) have been investigated for over a century. The similarity of two tests designed using two theories was examined. The Multidimensional Aptitude Battery used the individual differences psychometric approach while the MicroCog used a brain-behavior relationships approach. Both tests were administered to 10,612 participants. Correlations suggested the tests shared a common source of variance for the constructs measured. Confirmatory factor analyses established this and a hierarchical structure with g at the apex. The test designed to measure specific abilities (MicroCog) measured a single factor, g. Although different theories underlie their respective construction methods, results indicated the two tests measured much in common. That is, two theories, one outcome.

The predictive validity of cognitive ability and personality traits was examined in large samples of U.S. Air Force pilot trainees. Criterion data were collected between 1995 and 2008 from 4 training bases across 3 training tracks. Analyses also examined consistency in pilot aptitude and training outcomes. Results were consistent with previous research indicating cognitive ability is the best predictor of pilot training performance. There were few differences across training tracks, bases, and years, and none was large. Overall, results illustrated the consistency of the quality of pilot trainees as assessed by cognitive ability and personality trait measures, and the consistency of these measures in predicting training performance over time. This consistency results in a more stable training system, enabling greater efficiency and effectiveness.

Personnel PsychologyVolume 67, Issue 4 p. 994-996 Book Review Section Owen, Hilarie (Ed.). New Thinking on Leadership: A Global Perspective. Philadelphia, PA: Kogan Page, 2012, 176 pages, $39.95 paperback. Reviewed by Malcolm James Ree, Malcolm James Ree Professor of Organizational Leadership, Our Lady of the Lake University, San Antonio, TXSearch for more papers by this author Reviewed by Malcolm James Ree, Malcolm James Ree Professor of Organizational Leadership, Our Lady of the Lake University, San Antonio, TXSearch for more papers by this author First published: 29 October 2014 https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12088_5Citations: 1Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume67, Issue4Winter 2014Pages 994-996 RelatedInformation

AbstractAt an increasing rate, human resource managers are recognizing the need to understand how the dimensions of organizational culture affect the elements of the leader‐member exchange (LMX) model. A study of 300 working adults analyzed the relationship between the organizational cultural dimensions of individualism, collectivism, and gender egalitarianism and the four LMX dimensions of contribution, loyalty, affect, and professional respect. The results show that collectivism is a significant predictor of all four of the LMX dimensions, while gender egalitarianism is a significant predictor of only the LMX dimension of affect. Individualism was not found to be a predictor for any of the LMX dimensions. These findings are instrumental in helping HR managers capitalize on the strengths of collectivism as a driving factor as they design their policies and practices to achieve organizational objectives. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.