General mental ability, job performance, and red herrings: Responses to Osterman, Hauser, and Schmitt
Abbreviated Journal Title
Acad. Manag. Perspect.
INDIRECT RANGE RESTRICTION; WORK-FORCE PRODUCTIVITY; COGNITIVE-ABILITY; VALIDITY GENERALIZATION; PERSONNEL-SELECTION; STANDARD-DEVIATION; EUROPEAN-COMMUNITY; UTILITY ANALYSIS; CAREER SUCCESS; TESTS; Management
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.
Academy of Management Perspectives
"General mental ability, job performance, and red herrings: Responses to Osterman, Hauser, and Schmitt" (2007). Faculty Bibliography 2000s. 7620.