IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/intell/v109y2025ics0160289624000862.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reconsidering the search for alternatives to general mental ability tests

Author

Listed:
  • Cucina, Jeffrey M.

Abstract

Cognitive ability tests that measure general mental ability (g-tests) are among the best predictors of academic, training, and job performance. One disadvantage of g-tests is the potential for adverse impact due to subgroup differences on general mental ability (g). For many years, psychologists have searched for high-validity low-adverse impact alternatives to traditional g-loaded cognitive ability tests (g-tests). This paper explores the mathematical possibility of developing such a test based on the known characteristics of g-tests. It was discovered that superior replacements to g-tests cannot mathematically exist. This is due to the fact that adverse impact and subgroup differences occur primarily on g rather than the specific factors and unique variance that cognitive ability tests measure. The reliable non-g variance in most g-tests is too small to offset the subgroup differences in g-test scores that is attributable to g.

Suggested Citation

  • Cucina, Jeffrey M., 2025. "Reconsidering the search for alternatives to general mental ability tests," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:intell:v:109:y:2025:i:c:s0160289624000862
    DOI: 10.1016/j.intell.2024.101892
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289624000862
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.intell.2024.101892?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:intell:v:109:y:2025:i:c:s0160289624000862. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/intelligence .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.