General mental ability, job performance, and red herrings: Responses to Osterman, Hauser, and Schmitt

    Authors

    F. Schmidt; H. Le; I. S. Oh;J. Shaffer

    Comments

    Authors: contact us about adding a copy of your work at STARS@ucf.edu

    Abbreviated Journal Title

    Acad. Manag. Perspect.

    Keywords

    INDIRECT RANGE RESTRICTION; WORK-FORCE PRODUCTIVITY; COGNITIVE-ABILITY; VALIDITY GENERALIZATION; PERSONNEL-SELECTION; STANDARD-DEVIATION; EUROPEAN-COMMUNITY; UTILITY ANALYSIS; CAREER SUCCESS; TESTS; Management

    Abstract

    We respond to the three comments on our recent article in the August issue of Academy of Management Perspectives (Le, Oh, Shaffer, & Schmidt, 2007), which highlights the importance of methodological advances in human resource research. By concentrating on tangential aspects of our article, these comments miss its central points. Further, the comments (by Paul Osterman, Neat Schmitt, and Robert M. Hauser) either involve quibbles and misinterpretations of research evidence or are downright erroneous. We clarify the misunderstandings by providing evidence that is well-established through decades of research in the area of industrial/organizational psychology. By doing so, we re-emphasize that (a) the utility and validity of general mental ability are among the most robust findings in psychological research, (b) such findings were realized by the development of the meta-analysis method, and most important, (c) organizations can benefit greatly by utilizing findings obtained from meta-analysis.

    Journal Title

    Academy of Management Perspectives

    Volume

    21

    Issue/Number

    4

    Publication Date

    1-1-2007

    Document Type

    Article

    Language

    English

    First Page

    64

    Last Page

    76

    WOS Identifier

    WOS:000251849300007

    ISSN

    1558-9080

    Share

    COinS