Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2xdlg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-17T11:50:27.420Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

More Than g-Factors: Second-Stratum Factors Should Not Be Ignored

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 October 2015

Serena Wee ,
Daniel A. Newman  and
Q. Chelsea Song
Serena Wee*
Affiliation:
School of Social Sciences, Singapore Management University
Daniel A. Newman
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign
Q. Chelsea Song
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Serena Wee, Singapore Management University, School of Social Sciences, 90 Stamford Road, Singapore 178903. E-mail: serenawee@smu.edu.sg
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Ree, Carretta, and Teachout (2015) outlined a compelling argument for the pervasiveness of dominant general factors (DGFs) in psychological measurement. We agree that DGFs are important and that they are found for various constructs (e.g., cognitive abilities, work withdrawal), especially when an “unrotated principal components” analysis is conducted (Ree et al., p. 8). When studying hierarchical constructs, however, a narrow emphasis on uncovering DGFs would be incomplete at best and detrimental at worst. This commentary largely echoes the arguments made by Wee, Newman, and Joseph (2014), and Schneider and Newman (2015), who provided reasons for considering second-stratum cognitive abilities. We believe these same arguments in favor of second-stratum factors in the ability domain can be applied to hierarchical constructs more generally.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , September 2015 , pp. 482 - 488
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical literature. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888–918.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytical studies. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. B. (2003). The higher-stratum structure of cognitive abilities: Current evidence supports g and about ten broad factors. In Nyborg, H. (Ed.), The scientific study of general intelligence: Tribute to Arthur R. Jensen. Oxford, United Kingdom: Elsevier Science Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Cole, D. A., & Maxwell, S. E. (2003). Testing mediational models with longitudinal data: Questions and tips in the use of structural equation modeling. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112, 558–577.Google Scholar
De Corte, W., Lievens, F., & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Combining predictors to achieve optimal trade-offs between selection quality and adverse impact. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1380–1393.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1974). Attitudes towards objects as predictors of single and multiple behavioral criteria. Psychological Review, 81, 59–74.Google Scholar
Hanisch, K. A., Hulin, C. L., & Roznowski, M. (1998). The importance of individuals’ repertoires of behaviors: The scientific appropriateness of studying multiple behaviors and general attitudes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 463–480.Google Scholar
Hogan, J., & Holland, B. (2003). Using theory to evaluate personality and job–performance relations: A socioanalytic perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 100–112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hough, L. M., Oswald, F. L., & Ployhart, R. E. (2001). Determinants, detection and amelioration of adverse impact in personnel selection procedures: Issues, evidence and lessons learned. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 152–194.Google Scholar
Humphreys, L. G. (1962). The organization of human abilities. American Psychologist, 17, 475–483.Google Scholar
Joseph, D. L., & Newman, D. A. (2010). Emotional intelligence: An integrative meta-analysis and cascading model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 54–78.Google Scholar
Kelley, T. L. (1939). Mental factors of no importance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 30, 139–143.Google Scholar
MacCann, C., Joseph, D. L., Newman, D. A., & Roberts, R. D. (2014). Emotional intelligence is a second-stratum factor of intelligence: Evidence from hierarchical and bifactor models. Emotion, 14, 358–374.Google Scholar
McGrew, K. S. (2009). CHC theory and the human cognitive abilities project: Standing on the shoulders of the giants of psychometric intelligence research. Intelligence, 37, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, D. A., Joseph, D. L., & Hulin, C. L. (2010). Job attitudes and employee engagement: Considering the attitude “A-factor.” In Albrecht, S. (Ed.), The handbook of employee engagement: Perspectives, issues, research, and practice (pp. 43–61). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Outtz, J. L., & Newman, D. A. (2010). A theory of adverse impact. In Outtz, J. L. (Ed.), Adverse impact: Implications for organizational staffing and high stakes selection (pp. 53–94). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ree, M. J., & Carretta, T. R. (2002). g2K. Human Performance, 15, 3–23.Google Scholar
Ree, M. J., Carretta, T. R., & Teachout, M. S. (2015). Pervasiveness of dominant general factors in organizational measurement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 8 (3), 409–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reeve, C. L. (2004). Differential ability antecedents of general and specific dimensions of declarative knowledge: More than g. Intelligence, 32, 621–652.Google Scholar
Reeve, C. L., & Hakel, M. D. (2002). Asking the right questions about g. Human Performance, 15, 47–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, P. L., Bevier, C. A., Bobko, P., Switzer, F. S. I., & Tyler, P. (2001). Ethnic group differences in cognitive ability in employment and educational settings: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 54, 297–330.Google Scholar
Schneider, W. J., & Newman, D. A. (2015). Intelligence is multidimensional: Theoretical review and implications of narrower cognitive abilities. Human Resource Management Review, 25, 12–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Maas, H. L., Dolan, C. V., Grasman, R. P. P. P., Wicherts, J. M., Huizenga, H. M., & Raijmakers, M. E. (2006). A dynamical model of general intelligence: The positive manifold of intelligence by mutualism. Psychological Review, 113, 842–861.Google Scholar
Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2002). Agreements and disagreements on the role of general mental ability (GMA) in industrial, work, and organizational psychology. Human Performance, 15, 211–231.Google Scholar
Wee, S., Newman, D. A., & Joseph, D. L. (2014). More than g: Selection quality and adverse impact implications of considering second-stratum cognitive abilities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 547–563.Google Scholar
Yung, Y. F., Thissen, D., & McLeod, L. D. (1999). On the relationship between the higher-order factor model and the hierarchical factor model. Psychometrika, 64, 113–128.Google Scholar