一般心理能力(GMA)預(yù)測績效：現(xiàn)狀、機(jī)制及趨勢*

李英武 于 宙 韓 笑 劉婷安胥

(中國人民大學(xué)心理學(xué)系, 北京 100872)

1 引言

一般心理能力(General Mental Ability, GMA),又稱認(rèn)知能力(Cognitive Ability, CA), 其概念雖然早在百年前Spearman (1904)就已提出, 但在心理學(xué)、教育學(xué)、組織行為學(xué)、醫(yī)學(xué)等領(lǐng)域?qū)ζ涓拍罱缍▍s眾說紛紜, 不斷重構(gòu)。著名心理學(xué)家Jensen (1998)曾感慨“測量GMA要比界定其概念要容易的多”。早期, 以Spearman (1904)為代表的經(jīng)典心理測量學(xué)派認(rèn)為, 所謂的GMA, 就在多種認(rèn)知測驗(yàn)中(刺激)表現(xiàn)優(yōu)異(反應(yīng)), 通過因素分析提取的起共同作用的公共因素, 即G因素。一項(xiàng)基于國際學(xué)生評估項(xiàng)目(Program for International Student Assessment, PISA)跨國數(shù)據(jù)的因素分析表明, 不同國家學(xué)生個體的認(rèn)知能力同樣存在G因素 (Rindermann, 2007)。但是, 單憑Spearman的定義來理解G因素, 往往會受到質(zhì)疑, 即個體在某些測驗(yàn)上沒有獲得高分, 是不是說明他的一般心理能力就低？當(dāng)然也可能是測驗(yàn)設(shè)計(jì)的題目并不全面。顯然, 回應(yīng)質(zhì)疑的最好方式就是打開GMA的“黑箱”, 揭示其認(rèn)知機(jī)制(Kaufman,Kaufman, & Plucker, 2013)。

近期的一系列研究正是朝此方向努力。頂-額聯(lián)合理論(Parieto-frontal integration theory, P-FIT)和神經(jīng)效率理論(Neural Efficiency)認(rèn)為在智能活動中G因素的確存在(Brancucci, 2012), 不同腦區(qū)間信息的傳遞效率與GMA呈正相關(guān)(Deary,Penke, & Johnson, 2010), 大腦容積與GMA的相關(guān)高達(dá)0.63 (Rushton & Ankney, 2009)。但G因素并非是單一認(rèn)知機(jī)制而是由多種認(rèn)知機(jī)制, 如工作記憶(working memory)、處理速度(processing speed)和外顯聯(lián)想學(xué)習(xí)(explicit associative learning)交互作用并貫穿于個人發(fā)展整個過程(Kaufman et al., 2013)。

G因素是人類各項(xiàng)活動的中心(Spearman,1904)。G因素與大量生活事件顯著相關(guān), 并可以預(yù)測個體的社會經(jīng)濟(jì)地位。高G因素個體比低G因素個體受教育水平更高, 工作更體面, 收入更高(Judge, Klinger, & Simon, 2010)。綜合美國、英國、新西蘭、澳大利亞等國數(shù)據(jù)的縱向元分析發(fā)現(xiàn), G因素是經(jīng)濟(jì)社會地位(職業(yè)(0.43)、教育(0.56)、收入(0.23)的預(yù)測變量(Strenze, 2007)。G因素也對個體的主觀幸福感(Judge, Ilies, &Dimotakis, 2010)、健康(Ciarrochi, Heaven, &Skinner, 2012)、壽命(Gottfredson & Deary, 2004)等產(chǎn)生重要影響。研究顯示, 高G因素個體看電視時間更短, 體育鍛煉更多(Ciarrochi et al., 2012)。GMA在組織領(lǐng)域, 同樣可以預(yù)測工作相關(guān)效標(biāo),包括工作滿意度(Wulff, Bergman, & Sverke,2009)、領(lǐng)導(dǎo)力(Li, Arvey, & Song, 2011)、反生產(chǎn)行為(Marcus, Wagner, Poole, Powell, & Carswell,2009)、創(chuàng)造力(Cho, Nijenhuis, van Vianen, Kim, &Lee, 2010)等。縱向研究顯示, 個體的GMA具有跨時間的相對穩(wěn)定性(Schalke et al., 2013), 青少年期的GMA可以預(yù)測中年期的工作滿意度(Wulff et al., 2009)。

2 GMA的心理結(jié)構(gòu)與測量

2.1 GMA的心理結(jié)構(gòu)

探討GMA與績效的關(guān)系, 首先必須界定GMA的心理結(jié)構(gòu)(又稱“構(gòu)念”或者“維度”)。依據(jù)Spearman (1904, 1928) GMA經(jīng)典界定方式, 不同測驗(yàn)中S因素可以由更高階智力成分解釋, 這些更高階智力可以由一個成分——G因素解釋。Horn和Cattell (1966)認(rèn)為, G因素代表了兩種智力, 即流體智力(Fluid intelligence)和晶體智力(Crystallized intelligence)。兩年后, Horn (1968)拓展了兩分法, 認(rèn)為G因素主要由4種智力構(gòu)成：一般視覺(visualization, Gv)、短時記憶(short-term memory, Gsm)、長時記憶(long-term retrieval, Glr)和處理速度(processing speed, Gs)。Carroll (1993)提出了G因素的三層級理論(Three-stratum theory),最頂層是一般能力(G); 中間層由7種因素構(gòu)成,即流體智力、晶體智力、一般記憶容量、一般流暢性、一般視知覺、加工速度以及一般聽知覺; 最底層由許多特殊因素構(gòu)成。Carroll認(rèn)為認(rèn)知能力層級模型的核心是GMA決定一般性向, 一般性向決定特殊性向, 因果關(guān)系方向自上而下, 不可顛倒。上述理論得到很多研究者的認(rèn)同(Johnson &Bouchard, 2005), 并將Carroll的層級理論(hierarchical theory)、Horn和Cattell的流體-晶體智力理論(Gf-Gc theory)合稱為CHC理論(Cattell-Horn-Carroll Theory) (Flanagan, Ortiz, & Alfonso,2013)。CHC理論對當(dāng)代智力測驗(yàn)開發(fā)產(chǎn)生了重要影響, 如斯坦福-比奈智力測驗(yàn)第五版(Roid, 2003),考夫曼兒童智力測驗(yàn)第二版(Kaufman & Kaufman,2004)。

GMA與其他心理特質(zhì)一樣, 不可以直接測量, 但可以測量其外部表現(xiàn), 這些外部表現(xiàn)(通常是一般性向)被稱作GMA的“指示計(jì)” (Gottfredson,2002)。Hunter等(1985)也基于CHC給出了構(gòu)建GMA測驗(yàn)工具的理論基礎(chǔ)(見圖1)。圖1中的路徑系數(shù)說明了特殊性向、一般性向和GMA的關(guān)系(Hunter, Crosson, & Friedman, 1985), 采用復(fù)合相關(guān)公式(Nunnally, 2010)計(jì)算3個一般性向組合與GMA的相關(guān)系數(shù)為0.95 (Schmidt & Hunter,2004), 因此, 可以采用3個及以上一般性向測驗(yàn)組合測量GMA。大多數(shù)GMA測評工具是紙筆測驗(yàn)。研究發(fā)現(xiàn), 紙筆測驗(yàn)與相應(yīng)的實(shí)踐任務(wù), 測量了相同的成分(Vernon, 2014)。

圖1 美國軍隊(duì)職業(yè)傾向測驗(yàn)(ASVAB)的認(rèn)知能力層級

但是, CHC實(shí)質(zhì)上是基于統(tǒng)計(jì)的數(shù)據(jù)導(dǎo)向(data- driven) 的理論, 如果再以CHC理論去指導(dǎo)智力測驗(yàn)的編制, 難免會給人一種循環(huán)論證的感覺(張闊, 胡竹菁, 2002)。傳統(tǒng)的因素分析也只是對G因素表現(xiàn)的再描述, 并未真正解釋G因素的本質(zhì)(Kaufman et al., 2013)。G因素并未是單一的認(rèn)知機(jī)制, 而是與個體發(fā)展構(gòu)成各個階段緊密相連的、復(fù)雜的交互作用機(jī)制(Tamez, Myerson, &Hale, 2008)。揭示G因素的本質(zhì), 顯然需要深入探討其腦機(jī)制(Kaufman et al., 2013)。

對于G因素腦機(jī)制的探討, 目前的研究主要集中于工作記憶(Working memory, WM)的研究。以WM為關(guān)鍵詞在PsycINFO數(shù)據(jù)庫中檢索, 近10以來, 每年有近300篇文獻(xiàn), 而且呈逐年上升趨勢。Baddeley和Hitch (1974)認(rèn)為WM是一種容量有限的心理工作空間, 在信息加工和貯存任務(wù)上可靈活地部署能量。WM在復(fù)雜的認(rèn)知過程中, 參與控制調(diào)節(jié)活動并主動維持任務(wù)信息有關(guān)的加工過程。近期的一系列研究證實(shí), WM在個體學(xué)習(xí)、記憶、思維及問題解決等高級認(rèn)知活動時,提供暫時的信息加工與存儲機(jī)制和平臺(或空間),保存被激活的信息表征, 以備進(jìn)一步加工之用(劉兆敏, 郭春彥, 2013)。進(jìn)一步研究發(fā)現(xiàn), WM的信息加工與Gf相關(guān)顯著, 而信息存儲與Gc聯(lián)系緊密(Dang, Braeken, Ferrer, & Liu, 2012)。在WM經(jīng)典腦電實(shí)驗(yàn)范式n-back任務(wù)中, 隨著WM負(fù)載增大, P300的波幅下降, 且波幅與被試的韋氏智力測驗(yàn)成績呈正相關(guān)(Jaeggi et al., 2010)。

在神經(jīng)影像學(xué)研究中, 流體智力與WM容量(Working Memory Capacity, WMC)相關(guān)(Halford,Cowan, & Andrews, 2007), 且流體智力(fluid intelligence, Gf)、晶體智力(crystallized intelligence,Gc)和WMC的神經(jīng)影像重疊, 均位于額中回(BA 8) (Colom & Thompson, 2011)。較高水平的WMC處理任務(wù), 會激活右前額葉(BA 10) (Colom, Jung,& Haier, 2007)。

顯然, 上述研究不僅為認(rèn)識GMA提供了新視角而且為測評GMA, 即采用WM的一系列經(jīng)典實(shí)驗(yàn)任務(wù), 如復(fù)雜的記憶廣度任務(wù)(流體智力的最佳預(yù)測指標(biāo), 在記憶的同時完成復(fù)雜的認(rèn)知任務(wù), 但是需要較高的教育水平, 應(yīng)用范圍受限)(Lucidi, Loaiza, Camos, & Barrouillet, 2014)。用閱讀廣度, 計(jì)算廣度和點(diǎn)陣任務(wù)測評工作記憶容量(Colom et al., 2013)。工作記憶是通過復(fù)雜的記憶廣度任務(wù)測量的, 應(yīng)用雙任務(wù)范式, 要求被試在記憶簡單項(xiàng)目的同時進(jìn)行認(rèn)知任務(wù)(Dang, Braeken,Colom, Ferrer, & Liu, 2014)。在工作記憶任務(wù)中,被試必須協(xié)調(diào)存儲任務(wù)和加工任務(wù)(Engle, Tuholski,Laughlin, & Conway, 1999)?？梢杂脭?shù)字任務(wù)、言語任務(wù)、空間任務(wù),測評工作記憶(Colom, Rebollo,Palacios, Juan-Espinosa, & Kyllonen, 2004)。

2.2 GMA的統(tǒng)計(jì)校正方法

一個多世紀(jì)以來, GMA對績效的預(yù)測效度的統(tǒng)計(jì)方法也在不斷改進(jìn)。傳統(tǒng)研究的重點(diǎn)是特定測驗(yàn)或預(yù)測變量在特定組織中的預(yù)測效度, 此類研究一直由于樣本量過少飽受詬病。研究中, 如果被試少于2000人, 抽樣誤差會極大的影響預(yù)測效度(Schmidt & Hunter, 1978)。實(shí)際上, 某一特定組織中, 某一崗位的員工數(shù)量始終有限, 以致傳統(tǒng)研究結(jié)果在統(tǒng)計(jì)上不穩(wěn)定(Schmidt, Hunter, &Urry, 1976), 不同研究之間預(yù)測效度差異較大。為了矯正此類偏差, 提高對預(yù)測效度估計(jì)的精確度,Schmidt和Hunter (1977)提出了元分析, 在人事選拔領(lǐng)域稱為概化效度(Hunter & Schmidt, 2004)。目前, 元分析已廣泛應(yīng)用于各研究領(lǐng)域(Sackett, 2003),美國心理學(xué)會也認(rèn)可將元分析用于效度校正和效度概化。最佳效度數(shù)據(jù)源于大量研究結(jié)果的積累。校正了抽樣誤差后, GMA在不同組織中的預(yù)測效度幾乎一致(Schmidt et al., 1993)。

近年來, 研究者提出了更精確的偏差校正方法, 全距限制校正是應(yīng)用最為普遍的一項(xiàng)技術(shù)。研究發(fā)現(xiàn), 具體工作求職者群體的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)差比全國整體求職者的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)差低4%～6% (Lang, Kersting,& Hulsheger, 2010), 因此, 校正全距限制十分必要。通過校正, GMA的預(yù)測效度高于傳統(tǒng)元分析的結(jié)果(Le & Schmidt, 2006)。Hunter, Schmidt和Le (2006)研究發(fā)現(xiàn), 未恰當(dāng)?shù)男Ｕ嘞拗频凸懒薌MA對工作績效(21%)和培訓(xùn)績效(28%)的預(yù)測效度。在德國, 對培訓(xùn)績效的元分析也發(fā)現(xiàn)了類似結(jié)果, 校正后, GMA對培訓(xùn)績效的預(yù)測效度高達(dá)0.65 (Ziegler, Dietl, Danay, Vogel, & Buehner,2011)。

3 GMA與績效

績效是工業(yè)組織心理學(xué)研究的重點(diǎn)之一, 同樣也是GMA研究最為關(guān)注的預(yù)測指標(biāo)。所謂績效是指有益于實(shí)現(xiàn)組織目標(biāo)的全部行為和活動總和(Campbell et al., 1990)。

3.1 GMA與任務(wù)績效

在人事選拔近40年研究中, 通常將工作樣本和上級評定進(jìn)行整合, 合稱整體工作績效(Schmidt & Kaplan, 1971)。毋庸置疑, 任何工作的績效都可以細(xì)分為不同的維度, 有研究者甚至將工作績效分為十個維度(Ng & Feldman, 2008)。分維度評定工作績效更為精確？其實(shí)不然。目前最廣泛認(rèn)同的觀點(diǎn)是將工作績效分為任務(wù)績效和關(guān)系績效兩個維度(Motowidlo & Vanscotter, 1994)。實(shí)證研究表明, 工作績效評定中存在一般因素。元分析發(fā)現(xiàn), 在控制了暈輪誤差等測量誤差后,在工作績效評價中仍然存在一個可以解釋總變異中60%變異的一般因素(Viswesvaran, Schmidt, &Ones, 2005)。因此, 評定整體工作績效已可以滿足研究和實(shí)踐需求。

選拔方法的預(yù)測效度是重要的實(shí)踐屬性, 直接決定選拔方法的經(jīng)濟(jì)效益。研究者對GMA的預(yù)測效度進(jìn)行了大量研究, 包括對大量職業(yè)整體預(yù)測效度的研究(Bertua, Anderson, & Salgado,2005; Hunter & Hunter, 1984; Schmidt & Hunter,1998), 以及對某一具體職業(yè)預(yù)測效度的研究, 例如警察(Cuttler & Muchinsky, 2006; Hirsh, Northrop,& Schmidt, 1986)、售貨員(Vinchur, Schippmann,Switzer, & Roth, 1998)、聯(lián)邦刑偵人員(Ono, Sachau,Deal, Englert, & Taylor, 2011)等。

Hunter和Hunter (1984)采用一般能力傾向成套測驗(yàn)(GATB)為美國就業(yè)服務(wù)中心進(jìn)行的大規(guī)模研究是經(jīng)典研究之一。Hunter和Hunter (1984)對文職工作(civilian job)的425項(xiàng)研究(N=32124)進(jìn)行了元分析, 發(fā)現(xiàn)GMA對初級職位工作績效的預(yù)測效度為0.53, 每年帶來156.1億美元的效用,按照復(fù)雜度(基于信息加工需求)將工作分為五類(參照美國職業(yè)分類大典), 發(fā)現(xiàn)GMA對高復(fù)雜度(教授, 科學(xué)家, 高管)工作(職位族1)績效預(yù)測效度(0.58)高于低復(fù)雜度(看護(hù)工作)工作(職位族5)績效預(yù)測效度(0.23) (見表1)。顯然, GMA對所有工作的預(yù)測效度均較高, 預(yù)測效度受工作復(fù)雜度的調(diào)節(jié)。美國國家委員會的專家小組(Hartigan &Wigdor, 1989)對Hunter和Hunter (1984)的研究數(shù)據(jù)重新進(jìn)行了分析, 得出GMA對工作績效的預(yù)測效度為0.80。同樣印證了工作復(fù)雜度在GMA對工作績效預(yù)測關(guān)系中起調(diào)節(jié)作用。歐洲研究(Salgado, Anderson, Moscoso, Bertua, de Fruyt, et al., 2003)也發(fā)現(xiàn)了類似的結(jié)果。

GMA也是軍職工作績效最佳的預(yù)測變量,對空軍工作的平均預(yù)測效度為0.45 (Ree, Earles,& Teachout, 1994)。對海軍水手的研究發(fā)現(xiàn), GMA顯著預(yù)測多重工作績效(Hambrick et al., 2011)。GMA對美國聯(lián)邦刑偵人員工作績效的預(yù)測效度為0.44 (Ono et al., 2011)。McHenry, Hough, Toquam,Hanson和Ashworth (1990) 連續(xù)多年研究入伍人員(A計(jì)劃), 將工作績效分為5個維度, 采用實(shí)踐工作樣本測驗(yàn)評估績效。得出GMA對“專業(yè)技能(Core Technical Proficiency)”維度的預(yù)測效度為0.63,對“士兵共同科目(General Soldiering Performance)”維度的預(yù)測效度為0.65。近期的研究也驗(yàn)證了以上結(jié)論, GMA是工作績效的唯一顯著預(yù)測變量(Tews, Michel, & Lyons, 2010)。

表1 采用GATB對GMA預(yù)測效度的研究(Hunter &Hunter, 1984)

GMA對具體職業(yè)工作績效預(yù)測效度也普遍較高, 辦公室文員為0.52 (Pearlman, Schmidt, &Hunter, 1980), 銷售員為0.40 (Vinchur et al., 1998),電工、機(jī)械工、通信維護(hù)等技術(shù)性預(yù)測效度是0.43(Levine, Spector, Menon, & Narayanan, 1996), 警察績效的平均預(yù)測效度為0.38 (Hirsh et al., 1986),是否完成培訓(xùn)、是否違反紀(jì)律兩組警察的GMA差異顯著, 高GMA個體培訓(xùn)通過率高, 違紀(jì)行為少(Cuttler & Muchinsky, 2006)。對消防員的23年的縱向研究發(fā)現(xiàn), GMA對學(xué)業(yè)認(rèn)知工作績效的預(yù)測效度高達(dá)0.89 (該研究中學(xué)業(yè)認(rèn)知績效作為整體績效的一個維度) (Henderson, 2010)。在不同研究中, GMA對不同職業(yè)的預(yù)測效度在數(shù)值上略有不同, 但是, 預(yù)測效度均較高。

3.2 GMA與培訓(xùn)績效

在經(jīng)濟(jì)快速發(fā)展, 技術(shù)加速進(jìn)步的今天, 培訓(xùn)是幫助員工與時俱進(jìn), 更新知識技能必不可少的手段。從組織視角來看, 組織對員工進(jìn)行培訓(xùn),是基于員工長期提高的生產(chǎn)力可收回培訓(xùn)成本(Tracey, Tannenbaum, & Kavanagh, 1995)。然而,如果員工的培訓(xùn)績效不高, 員工很難將新知識應(yīng)用于現(xiàn)實(shí)工作中, 生產(chǎn)力沒有提高, 培訓(xùn)成本難以收回(Arthur Jr, Bennett Jr, Edens, & Bell, 2003)。所以, 了解員工的培訓(xùn)績效至關(guān)重要。對多種員工培訓(xùn)績效影響因素的研究發(fā)現(xiàn), GMA預(yù)測效度最高(Schmidt & Hunter, 1998)。GMA對培訓(xùn)績效的預(yù)測效度高于對工作績效的預(yù)測效度。

Schmidt和Hunter (1998)元分析得出GMA對培訓(xùn)績效的預(yù)測效度為0.56, 高于同一研究中對工作績效的預(yù)測效度(0.51)。不同的元分析發(fā)現(xiàn),GMA對工作績效的未加權(quán)平均預(yù)測效度是0.55,對培訓(xùn)績效的預(yù)測效度是0.63 (Schmidt & Hunter,2004)。Kramer (2009)研究了德國特殊教育體系背景下GMA對培訓(xùn)績效的預(yù)測效度, 得出GMA的預(yù)測效度為0.62。

在不同研究中, GMA對不同職業(yè)培訓(xùn)績效的預(yù)測效度在數(shù)值上略有不同, 但是, 預(yù)測效度均較高, GMA對培訓(xùn)績效的預(yù)測效度高于工作績效,是培訓(xùn)績效的最佳單一預(yù)測變量。

4 GMA預(yù)測績效的機(jī)制

學(xué)習(xí)和問題解決能力是GMA影響工作績效的中介。學(xué)習(xí)和問題解決能力是影響績效的核心能力(Tews, Michel, & Noe, 2011), 而GMA是影響學(xué)習(xí)和問題解決的主要個體差異(Sternberg &Grigorenko, 2002)。也有研究提出GMA和工作績效之間的中介是工作知識(陳述性知識)和技能(程序性知識) (Schmidt, 2002)：GMA直接影響工作知識的獲得與技能習(xí)得(Hunter & Schmidt, 1996),工作知識與技能直接決定工作績效(如圖2)。

圖2 GMA影響工作績效邏輯圖

Hunter和Schmidt (1996)研究發(fā)現(xiàn), GMA主要影響工作知識的獲得, 通過工作知識影響工作績效, GMA對工作績效也有直接效應(yīng), 但是, 這一效應(yīng)小于通過工作知識中介的效應(yīng), 其分析結(jié)果路徑圖見圖3。研究結(jié)果表明, GMA通過影響工作知識的獲得影響工作績效。學(xué)習(xí)能力決定了習(xí)得各類知識和技能的速度, 在這一層面上, 兩類中介變量是統(tǒng)一的。

大量研究證明, GMA對績效的預(yù)測效度受到工作復(fù)雜度的調(diào)節(jié), 主要原因是：復(fù)雜工作需要員工掌握更多知識, 同時復(fù)雜工作必需的信息加工量更大(Kuncel, Hezlett, & Ones, 2004)。在培訓(xùn)和工作中, 高GMA個體學(xué)習(xí)和問題解決能力更強(qiáng), 可以更多更快的掌握工作知識, 習(xí)得工作相關(guān)技能, 處理復(fù)雜信息, 因此, 績效更高。

圖3 認(rèn)知能力、工作知識、工作績效和上級評價績效的路徑分析

5 GMA與影響績效的其他因素

除GMA外, 也存在其他可能影響工作或培訓(xùn)績效的因素, 包括特殊性向、工齡等。

5.1 特殊性向

特殊性向理論認(rèn)為, 不同工作需要不同能力,通過工作分析得出的每一具體工作所需的幾類特殊性向的加權(quán)組合, 可以比GMA更好的預(yù)測工作和培訓(xùn)績效。但是, 近年來大量研究反對這一理論, 認(rèn)為GMA的預(yù)測效度高于特殊性向測驗(yàn)的加權(quán)組合, 特殊性向幾乎沒有為GMA測驗(yàn)提供增量效度(Salgado, Anderson, Moscoso, Bertua,de Fruyt, et al., 2003)。Hunter (1986)發(fā)現(xiàn)GMA的平均預(yù)測效度(0.63)等于或高于特殊性向組合的平均預(yù)測效度(0.58～0.63)。Ree和Earles (1991)研究了78041名空軍士兵的培訓(xùn)績效, 發(fā)現(xiàn)控制了GMA后, 特殊性向沒有產(chǎn)生增量效度。Ree等(1994)對7類空軍工作的研究發(fā)現(xiàn)特殊性向?qū)︻A(yù)測工作績效的平均增量效度僅有0.02。Brown, Le和Schmidt (2006)采用涵蓋10類工作的大樣本軍方數(shù)據(jù), 校正了測量誤差和統(tǒng)計(jì)偏差后發(fā)現(xiàn), 特殊性向沒有為GMA預(yù)測培訓(xùn)績效提供任何增量效度。歐洲研究也發(fā)現(xiàn)GMA是最佳單一預(yù)測變量, 對10個歐洲國家GMA和特殊性向(包括言語、數(shù)字、空間、知覺和記憶)對工作績效和培訓(xùn)績效預(yù)測效度進(jìn)行了元分析, 結(jié)果表明, GMA的預(yù)測效度顯著高于特殊性向(Salgado, Anderson,Moscoso, Bertua, & De Fruyt, 2003), 特殊性向幾乎不提供增量效度(Ziegler et al., 2011)。

特殊性向沒有為GMA提供增量效度, 主要原因是學(xué)習(xí)能力在工作和培訓(xùn)績效中必不可少(Bloom, 1976), 而GMA包括學(xué)習(xí)能力。學(xué)習(xí)能力決定了習(xí)得其他所有認(rèn)知技能的速度——包括工作相關(guān)技能(Schmidt & Hunter, 2004)。其次, 根據(jù)智力層級模型以及GMA測驗(yàn)的構(gòu)建方法, GMA與特殊性向之間高度相關(guān), GMA是特殊性向的潛變量, 特殊性向是GMA的“指標(biāo)” (Schmidt &Hunter, 2004)。所以, 特殊性向不會為GMA預(yù)測績效提供增量效度。

5.2 工齡

工作經(jīng)驗(yàn)(以工齡衡量)提供學(xué)習(xí)工作知識的機(jī)會, 工齡長的個體可習(xí)得更多工作知識, 知道怎樣更高效的完成工作任務(wù), 從而績效水平更高(Schmidt, Hunter, & Outerbridge, 1986)?？梢约僭O(shè)：工齡越長, 工作績效越高, 工齡可以預(yù)測工作績效。然而, 大量實(shí)證證據(jù)反駁了以上假設(shè)。元分析發(fā)現(xiàn), 工齡對整體工作績效的預(yù)測效度為0.27(Quinones, Ford, & Teachout, 1995)。Schmidt和Hunter (1998)的大規(guī)模元分析發(fā)現(xiàn), 工齡對工作績效的預(yù)測效度為0.18, 增量效度為0.03, 對培訓(xùn)績效的預(yù)測效度為0.01。工齡對績效的預(yù)測效度較低。與McDaniel, Schmidt和Hunter (1988)研究發(fā)現(xiàn)在控制GMA的前提下, 隨時間推移, 工齡的預(yù)測效度下降(見表2)。近期的大規(guī)模元分析發(fā)現(xiàn), 工齡與多種方式評定(自評, 上級評價, 同事評價, 其他非自我報告評價)的工作績效相關(guān)均在0.10以下, 甚至存在負(fù)相關(guān)(Ng & Feldman, 2013),根據(jù)Cohen (2013)的標(biāo)準(zhǔn), 系數(shù)在0.10以下, 可以認(rèn)為相關(guān)不顯著。

在工業(yè)化國家, 員工的平均任期越來越短(Feldman & Ng, 2007)。組織頻繁裁員和重組, 員工終身雇傭減少, 勞動力市場流動頻繁(Verbruggen,2012), 在單一崗位上的工齡, 也越來越短。加之科技不斷進(jìn)步和全球化的日益發(fā)展, 職業(yè)領(lǐng)域不斷變化, 漸趨復(fù)雜, 工作知識總量不斷增加, 通過工齡難以窮盡工作知識。因此, 工齡的重要性日漸下降。GMA的作用日益凸顯, 高GMA個體習(xí)得更多工作知識, 同時, 對不斷變化的工作環(huán)境適應(yīng)度更高(Lang & Bliese, 2009), 進(jìn)而績效更高。同時, 人力資源實(shí)踐關(guān)注的是整體工作績效,任務(wù)復(fù)雜度高, 必須控制加工多種認(rèn)知信息。因此, 工齡與工作績效相關(guān)度低, GMA與工作績效保持高相關(guān)(Schmidt, Ones, & Hunter, 1992)。

表2 工齡對工作績效的預(yù)測效度(McDaniel et al., 1988)

6 GMA預(yù)測效度研究趨勢

6.1 GMA與其他因素結(jié)合

GMA是績效的最佳單一預(yù)測變量, 為了進(jìn)一步提高選拔方法的預(yù)測效度。人事選拔領(lǐng)域歷來將GMA與其他預(yù)測變量組合, 以期最大化預(yù)測效度。

傳統(tǒng)預(yù)測變量, 例如, GMA和人格組合, 對績效產(chǎn)生重要的影響(Kuncel, Ones, & Sackett, 2010;O'Connor & Paunonen, 2007), 有些研究者也開始關(guān)注非傳統(tǒng)的預(yù)測變量。其中一個因素就是個體的道德發(fā)展水平(Moral Development’s level,MDL), 通常包括道德判斷、道德推理、道德意向和道德行為四個維度。研究發(fā)現(xiàn), 個體的道德發(fā)展水平可以通過技術(shù)績效間接預(yù)測工作績效(Lee,Stettler, & Antonakis, 2011)。

政治技能(Political Skill)是工作中有效理解他人, 并且引導(dǎo)他人實(shí)現(xiàn)個體和組織目標(biāo)的技能(Ferris et al., 2005)。政治技能與其他因素(例如,自我監(jiān)控, 領(lǐng)導(dǎo)自我效能感, 情緒智力)相比是管理績效最佳的預(yù)測指標(biāo)(Semadar, Robins, & Ferris,2006), 政治技能比自我效能感的對關(guān)系績效的預(yù)測力更強(qiáng)(Jawahar, Meurs, Ferris, & Hochwarter,2008)。橫向縱向研究均表明政治技能為GMA和人格提供增量效度(Blickle et al., 2011)。

工作滿意度(Job satisfaction)指的是個體對自己所承擔(dān)工作的態(tài)度, 即由個體對的工作情感體驗(yàn)和工作信念導(dǎo)致的對工作的整體評價判斷(Weiss, 2002)。工作滿意度是工業(yè)組織心理學(xué)中古老的主題之一, 近年來出現(xiàn)了研究興趣的復(fù)興。元分析發(fā)現(xiàn), 工作滿意度與工作績效之間的校正后平均相關(guān)為0.30 (Judge, Thoresen, Bono, &Patton, 2001)。也有元分析的證據(jù)表明工作滿意度與工作績效之間的相關(guān)是虛假的, 控制了人格等因素后, 相關(guān)不顯著(Bowling, 2007)。工作滿意度與工作績效之間的關(guān)系受到文化的調(diào)節(jié), 在個體主義文化、低權(quán)力距離文化、男性化文化中, 工作滿意度與工作績效之間的相關(guān)較強(qiáng)(Ng,Sorensen, & Yim, 2009)。研究者對工作滿意度與工作績效線性關(guān)系的研究結(jié)果并不一致, 有些研究者開始關(guān)注工作滿意度與工作績效的非線性關(guān)系(Somers & Casal, 2009), 工作滿意度與工作績效之間的調(diào)節(jié)變量(例如, 工作沖突(Job Ambivalence)等) (Ziegler, Hagen, & Diehl, 2012)、中介變量(例如, 組織承諾等) (Tsai, Cheng, &Chang, 2010)。工作滿意度已經(jīng)成為研究者關(guān)注的態(tài)度型預(yù)測變量之一, 相對于特質(zhì)型變量, 態(tài)度型變量更容易通過干預(yù), 提高員工工作滿意度,進(jìn)而增加工作績效。

認(rèn)知性好奇(epistemic curiosity)包括對信息和知識獲得、學(xué)習(xí)和思考的偏好。研究顯示, 認(rèn)知性好奇對工作績效的預(yù)測效度為0.34, 認(rèn)知性好奇為12個認(rèn)知和非認(rèn)知預(yù)測變量提供增量效度(Mussel, 2013)。認(rèn)知性好奇是預(yù)測和解釋工作相關(guān)行為中一個重要的變量。認(rèn)知性好奇驅(qū)使個體學(xué)習(xí)更多工作相關(guān)知識, 習(xí)得更多工作相關(guān)技能, 更新知識體系, 精進(jìn)工作技能。隨著經(jīng)濟(jì)技術(shù)的快速發(fā)展, 工作任務(wù)和性質(zhì)發(fā)生巨變, 認(rèn)知性好奇的重要性日益凸顯, 認(rèn)知性好奇的測評可能會成為人事選拔技術(shù)的未來發(fā)展方向之一。

6.2 GMA預(yù)測效度研究的未來發(fā)展

盡管, GMA是工作績效和培訓(xùn)績效的最佳單一預(yù)測變量, 但是, 一個世紀(jì)以來, 對GMA預(yù)測效度的質(zhì)疑從未平息, 不僅包括傳統(tǒng)上對GMA測試合法性和歧視性的質(zhì)疑(Derous, Ryan, &Buijsrogge, 2013), 還有大量新問題需要未來研究解決。

實(shí)踐中, GMA測驗(yàn)存在時間限制, 這可能會激發(fā)測驗(yàn)焦慮, 降低得分。不同特質(zhì)個體受到時間限制的影響不同, 焦慮、深思熟慮的個體更容易受到時間限制的影響, 更可能在選拔中被淘汰掉(Denis & Gilbert, 2012), 導(dǎo)致組織拒絕合格的應(yīng)聘者。時間限制的存在, 使得測評方法不僅僅測評了GMA, 還包括焦慮等人格特質(zhì)。鑒于實(shí)際情況, GMA測驗(yàn)不可能取消時間限制。如何降低時間限制對GMA測驗(yàn)的影響, 可以成為未來人事選拔程序發(fā)展的突破點(diǎn)。

研究者采用了瑞典征兵辦公室的大規(guī)模數(shù)據(jù)評估GMA和非認(rèn)知能力對社會經(jīng)濟(jì)地位(教育、工作、收入)的影響。結(jié)果表明, 經(jīng)濟(jì)社會地位低的男性是由于非認(rèn)知能力低而不是低GMA, 非認(rèn)知能力對管理崗位更為重要(Lindqvist &Vestman, 2011)。同時, 有研究指出, 非認(rèn)知能力的預(yù)測效度低, 是因?yàn)槿狈Ψ钦J(rèn)知能力的有效測評手段(Borghans, Duckworth, Heckman, & ter Weel, 2008)。如果可以解決這一問題, 將會使整個人事選拔領(lǐng)域進(jìn)入新階段。

近百年來, 統(tǒng)計(jì)技術(shù)不斷進(jìn)度, 研究者不斷采用更高精度的統(tǒng)計(jì)分析方法。研究者采用新統(tǒng)計(jì)方法分析——嵌套模型, 基于Sperman的智力理論, 分析了7項(xiàng)特殊性向(基于瑟斯頓的基本心理能力), GMA, 和工作績效的關(guān)系。結(jié)果發(fā)現(xiàn)GMA解釋了工作績效總變異的10.9%到28.6%(受到工作復(fù)雜度的調(diào)節(jié)) (Lang, Kersting,Hulsheger, & Lang, 2010)。在特定組織中, 低GMA個體也可成為高績效者(Beier & Oswald,2012), 在設(shè)計(jì)特定組織的選拔程序時, 也應(yīng)該考慮組織類型。

元分析發(fā)現(xiàn), 應(yīng)試指導(dǎo)和練習(xí)效應(yīng)影響GMA對績效的預(yù)測效度, 在復(fù)試中, 影響更大(Hausknecht, Halpert, Di Paolo, & Gerrard, 2007)。應(yīng)試指導(dǎo)的目的在于改善應(yīng)試技巧, 練習(xí)效應(yīng)可以從應(yīng)試中獲取經(jīng)驗(yàn)。目前, 在我國大規(guī)模公務(wù)員招錄考試中, 所采用的行政職業(yè)能力傾向測驗(yàn)也測量了考生的GMA, 在臨考前各類形形色色的輔導(dǎo)班遍地開花, 此類應(yīng)試指導(dǎo)和練習(xí)效應(yīng)是否會對GMA的預(yù)測效度產(chǎn)生影響, 是未來需要解決的重要問題之一。此外, 歐洲的研究證明GMA具備較好的概化效度。但是, GMA在我國的概化效度探討并不充分, 這些都是GMA預(yù)測效度未來研究的突破點(diǎn)之一。

劉兆敏, 郭春彥. (2013). 工作記憶和長時記憶共享信息表征的ERP證據(jù).心理學(xué)報, 45(3), 276-284.

張闊, 胡竹菁. (2002). 略論智力測驗(yàn)發(fā)展的現(xiàn)狀與趨勢.心理學(xué)探新, 22(2), 36-40.

Arthur Jr, W., Bennett Jr, W., Edens, P. S., & Bell, S. T.(2003). Effectiveness of training in organizations: A meta-analysis of design and evaluation features.Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 234-245.

Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory.Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 8, 47-89.

Beier, M. E., & Oswald, F. L. (2012). Is cognitive ability a liability? A critique and future research agenda on skilled performance.Journal of Experimental Psychology-Applied,18(4), 331-345.

Bertua, C., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2005). The predictive validity of cognitive ability tests: A UK metaanalysis.Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 387-409.

Blickle, G., Kramer, J., Schneider, P. B., Meurs, J. A., Ferris,G. R., Mierke, J., & Momm, T. D. (2011). Role of political skill in job performance prediction beyond general mental ability and personality in cross-sectional and predictive studies.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(2),488-514.

Bloom, B. S. (1976).Human characteristics and school learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Borghans, L., Duckworth, A. L., Heckman, J. J., & ter Weel,B. (2008). The economics and psychology of personality traits.Journal of Human Resources, 43(4), 972-1059.

Bowling, N. A. (2007). Is the job satisfaction-job performance relationship spurious? A meta-analytic examination.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71(2), 167-185.

Brancucci, A. (2012). Neural correlates of cognitive ability.Journal of Neuroscience Research, 90(7), 1299-1309.

Brown, K. G., Le, H., & Schmidt, F. L. (2006). Specific aptitude theory revisited: Is there incremental validity for training performance?International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 14(2), 87-100.

Campbell, C. H., Ford, P., Rumsey, M. G., Pulakos, E. D.,Borman, W. C., Felker, D. B., & Riegelhaupt, B. J. (1990).Development of multiple job performance measures in a representative sample of jobs.Personnel Psychology,43(2), 277-300.

Carroll, J. B. (1993).Human cognitive abilities. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Cho, S. H., Nijenhuis, J. T., van Vianen, A. E. M., Kim,H.-B., & Lee, K. H. (2010). The relationship between diverse components of intelligence and creativity.Journal of Creative Behavior, 44(2), 125-137.

Ciarrochi, J., Heaven, P. C. L., & Skinner, T. (2012).Cognitive ability and health-related behaviors during adolescence: A prospective study across five years.Intelligence, 40(4), 317-324.

Cohen, J. (2013).Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Taylor & Francis.

Colom, R., Jung, R. E., & Haier, R. J. (2007). General intelligence and memory span: Evidence for a common neuroanatomic framework.Cognitive Neuropsychology,24(8), 867-878.

Colom, R., Rebollo, I., Palacios, A., Juan-Espinosa, M., &Kyllonen, P. C. (2004). Working memory is (almost)perfectly predicted by g.Intelligence, 32(3), 277-296.

Colom, R., Román, F. J., Abad, F. J., Shih, P. C., Privado, J.,Froufe, M., & Quiroga, M. (2013). Adaptive n-back training does not improve fluid intelligence at the construct level: Gains on individual tests suggest that training may enhance visuospatial processing.Intelligence, 41(5), 712-727.

Colom, R., & Thompson, P. M. (2011). Understanding human intelligence by imaging the brain. In T. Chamorro-Premuzic, S. von Stumm, & A. Furnham (Eds.),Handbook of individual differences. London: Wiley-Blackwell.

Cuttler, M. J., & Muchinsky, P. M. (2006). Prediction of law enforcement training performance and dysfunctional job performance with general mental ability, personality, and life history variables.Criminal Justice and Behavior,33(1), 3-25.

Dang, C. P., Braeken, J., Colom, R., Ferrer, E., & Liu, C.(2014). Why is working memory related to intelligence?Different contributions from storage and processing.Memory, 22(4), 426-441.

Dang, C. P., Braeken, J., Ferrer, E., & Liu, C. (2012). Unitary or non-unitary nature of working memory? Evidence from its relation to general fluid and crystallized intelligence.Intelligence, 40(5), 499-508.

Deary, I. J., Penke, L., & Johnson, W. (2010). The neuroscience of human intelligence differences.Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(3), 201-211.

Denis, P. L., & Gilbert, F. (2012). The effect of time constraints and personality facets on general cognitive ability (GCA) assessment.Personality and Individual Differences, 52(4), 541-545.

Derous, E., Ryan, A. M., & Buijsrogge, A. (2013). Maybe too little but not too late: Four challenges for employment discrimination research in IO.Industrial and Organizational Psychology-Perspectives on Science and Practice, 6(1),75-80.

Engle, R. W., Tuholski, S. W., Laughlin, J. E., & Conway, A.R. A. (1999). Working memory, short-term memory, and general fluid intelligence: A latent-variable approach.Journal of Experimental Psychology-General, 128(3), 309-331.

Feldman, D. C., & Ng, T. W. H. (2007). Careers: Mobility,embeddedness, and success.Journal of Management,33(3), 350-377.

Ferris, G. R., Treadway, D. C., Kolodinsky, R. W.,Hochwarter, W. A., Kacmar, C. J., Douglas, C., & Frink, D.D. (2005). Development and validation of the political skill inventory.Journal of Management, 31(1), 126-152.

Flanagan, D. P., Ortiz, S. O., & Alfonso, V. C. (2013).Essentials of cross-battery assessment(Vol. 84). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Gottfredson, L. S. (2002). Where and why g matters: Not a mystery.Human Performance, 15(1-2), 25-46.

Gottfredson, L. S., & Deary, I. J. (2004). Intelligence predicts health and longevity, but why?Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(1), 1-4.

Halford, G. S., Cowan, N., & Andrews, G. (2007). Separating cognitive capacity from knowledge: A new hypothesis.Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(6), 236-242.

Hambrick, D. Z., Rench, T. A., Poposki, E. M., Darowski, E.S., Roland, D., Bearden, R. M., & Brou, R. (2011). The relationship between the ASVAB and multitasking in navy sailors: A process-specific approach.Military Psychology,23(4), 365-380.

Hartigan, J. A., & Wigdor, A. K. (1989).Fairness in employment testing: Validity generalization, minority issues,and the general aptitude test battery. Washington, DC:National Academies Press.

Hausknecht, J. P., Halpert, J. A., Di Paolo, N. T., & Gerrard,M. O. M. (2007). Retesting in selection: A meta-analysis of coaching and practice effects for tests of cognitive ability.Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 373-385.

Henderson, N. D. (2010). Predicting long-term firefighter performance from cognitive and physical ability measures.Personnel Psychology, 63(4), 999-1039.

Hirsh, H. R., Northrop, L. C., & Schmidt, F. L. (1986).Validity generalization results for law enforcement occupations.Personnel Psychology, 39(2), 399-420.

Horn, J. L. (1968). Organization of abilities and the development of intelligence.Psychological Review, 75(3),242-259.

Horn, J. L., & Cattell, R. B. (1966). Refinement and test of the theory of fluid and crystallized general intelligences.Journal of Educational Psychology, 57(5), 253-270.

Hunter, J. E. (1986). Cognitive ability, cognitive aptitudes,job knowledge, and job performance.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 29(3), 340-362.

Hunter, J. E., Crosson, J. J., & Friedman, D. H. (1985). The validity of the armed services vocational aptitude battery(ASVAB) for civilian and military job performance.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense.

Hunter, J. E., & Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance.Psychological Bulletin, 96(1), 72-98.

Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1996). Intelligence and job performance: Economic and social implications.Psychology,Public Policy, and Law, 2(3-4), 447-472.

Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004).Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting for error and bias in research findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Hunter, J. E., Schmidt, F. L., & Le, H. (2006). Implications of direct and indirect range restriction for meta-analysis methods and findings.Journal of Applied Psychology,91(3), 594-612.

Jaeggi, S. M., Studer-Luethi, B., Buschkuehl, M., Su, Y.-F.,Jonides, J., & Perrig, W. J. (2010). The relationship between n-back performance and matrix reasoning -implications for training and transfer.Intelligence, 38(6),625-635.

Jawahar, I. M., Meurs, J. A., Ferris, G. R., & Hochwarter, W.A. (2008). Self-efficacy and political skill as comparative predictors of task and contextual performance: A two-study constructive replication.Human Performance,21(2), 138-157.

Johnson, W., & Bouchard, T. J. (2005). The structure of human intelligence: It is verbal, perceptual, and image rotation (VPR), not fluid and crystallized.Intelligence,33(4), 393-416.

Judge, T. A., Ilies, R., & Dimotakis, N. (2010). Are health and happiness the product of wisdom? The relationship of general mental ability to educational and occupational attainment, health, and well-being.Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 454-468.

Judge, T. A., Klinger, R. L., & Simon, L. S. (2010). Time is on my side: Time, general mental ability, human capital,and extrinsic career success.Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 92-107.

Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K.(2001). The job satisfaction-job performance relationship:A qualitative and quantitative review.Psychological Bulletin, 127(3), 376-407.

Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2004).Kaufman test of educational achievement-comprehensive form. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

Kaufman, J. C., Kaufman, S. B., & Plucker, J. A. (2013).Contemporary theories of intelligence. The oxford handbook of cognitive psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kramer, J. (2009). General mental ability and occupational success in germany: Further metaanalytic elaborations and amplifications.Psychologische Rundschau, 60(2), 82-98.

Kuncel, N. R., Hezlett, S. A., & Ones, D. S. (2004). Academic performance, career potential, creativity, and job performance:Can one construct predict them all?Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 86(1), 148-161.

Kuncel, N. R., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. (2010).Individual differences as predictors of work, educational,and broad life outcomes.Personality and Individual Differences, 49(4), 331-336.

Lang, J. W. B., & Bliese, P. D. (2009). General mental ability and two types of adaptation to unforeseen change:Applying discontinuous growth models to the task-change paradigm.Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 411-428.

Lang, J. W. B., Kersting, M., & Hulsheger, U. R. (2010).Range shrinkage of cognitive ability test scores in applicant pools for german governmental jobs: Implications for range restriction corrections.International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 18(3), 321-328.

Lang, J. W. B., Kersting, M., Hulsheger, U. R., & Lang, J.(2010). General mental ability, narrower cognitive abilities,and job performance: The perspective of the nested-factors model of cognitive abilities.Personnel Psychology, 63(3),595-640.

Le, H., & Schmidt, F. L. (2006). Correcting for indirect range restriction in meta-analysis: Testing a new metaanalytic procedure.Psychological Methods, 11(4), 416-438.

Lee, Y. T., Stettler, A., & Antonakis, J. (2011). Incremental validity and indirect effect of ethical development on work performance.Personality and Individual Differences, 50(7),1110-1115.

Levine, E. L., Spector, P. E., Menon, S., & Narayanan, L.(1996). Validity generalization for cognitive, psychomotor,and perceptual tests for craft jobs in the utility industry.Human Performance, 9(1), 1-22.

Li, W. D., Arvey, R. D., & Song, Z. (2011). The influence of general mental ability, self-esteem and family socioeconomic status on leadership role occupancy and leader advancement:The moderating role of gender.Leadership Quarterly,22(3), 520-534.

Lindqvist, E., & Vestman, R. (2011). The labor market returns to cognitive and noncognitive ability: Evidence from the Swedish enlistment.American Economic Journal-Applied Economics, 3(1), 101-128.

Lucidi, A., Loaiza, V., Camos, V., & Barrouillet, P. (2014).Assessing working memory capacity through timeconstrained elementary activities.Journal of General Psychology, 141(2), 98-112.

Marcus, B., Wagner, U., Poole, A., Powell, D. M., &Carswell, J. (2009). The relationship of GMA to counterproductive work behavior revisited.European Journal of Personality, 23(6), 489-507.

McDaniel, M. A., Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1988). Job experience correlates of job performance.Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(2), 327-330.

McHenry, J. J., Hough, L. M., Toquam, J. L., Hanson, M. A.,& Ashworth, S. (1990). Project a validity results: The relationship between predictor and criterion domains.Personnel Psychology, 43(2), 335-354.

Motowidlo, S. J., & Vanscotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task-performance should be distinguished from contextual performance.Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), 475-480.

Mussel, P. (2013). Introducing the construct curiosity for predicting job performance.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(4), 453-472.

Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2008). The relationship of age to ten dimensions of job performance.Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 392-423.

Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2013). Does longer job tenure help or hinder job performance?Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83(3), 305-314.

Ng, T. W. H., Sorensen, K. L., & Yim, F. H. K. (2009). Does the job satisfaction-job performance relationship vary across cultures?Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,40(5), 761-796.

Nunnally, J. C. (2010).Psychometric theory(3rd ed). New York: McGraw-Hill.

O'Connor, M. C., & Paunonen, S. V. (2007). Big five personality predictors of post-secondary academic performance.Personality and Individual Differences, 43(5), 971-990.

Ono, M., Sachau, D. A., Deal, W. P., Englert, D. R., & Taylor,M. D. (2011). Cognitive ability, emotional intelligence,and the big five personality dimensions as predictors of criminal investigator performance.Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38(5), 471-491.

Pearlman, K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1980). Validity generalization results for tests used to predict job proficiency and training success in clerical occupations.Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(4), 373-406.

Quinones, M. A., Ford, J. K., & Teachout, M. S. (1995). The relationship between work experience and job performance: A conceptual and meta-analytic review.Personnel Psychology,48(4), 887-910.

Ree, M. J., & Earles, J. A. (1991). Predicting training success: Not much more than g.Personnel Psychology,44(2), 321-332.

Ree, M. J., Earles, J. A., & Teachout, M. S. (1994).Predicting job performance: Not much more than g.Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), 518-524.

Rindermann, H. (2007). The g-factor of international cognitive ability comparisons: The homogeneity of results in pisa, timss, pirls and IQ-tests across nations.European Journal of Personality, 21(5), 667-706.

Roid, G. (2003).Stanford-binet intelligence scales, fifth edition (sb5).Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside.

Rushton, J. P., & Ankney, C. D. (2009). Whole brain size and general mental ability: A review.International Journal of Neuroscience, 119(5), 692-732.

Sackett, P. R. (2003). The status of validity generalization research: Key issues in drawing inferences from cumulative research findings. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.),Validity generalization: A critical review(pp. 91-114). Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum.

Salgado, J. F., Anderson, N., Moscoso, S., Bertua, C., & de Fruyt, F. (2003). International validity generalization of GMA and cognitive abilities: A European community meta-analysis.Personnel Psychology, 56(3), 573-605.

Salgado, J. F., Anderson, N., Moscoso, S., Bertua, C., de Fruyt, F., & Rolland, J. P. (2003). A meta-analytic study of general mental ability validity for different occupations in the European community.Journal of Applied Psychology,88(6), 1068-1081.

Schalke, D., Brunner, M., Geiser, C., Preckel, F., Keller, U.,Spengler, M., & Martin, R. (2013). Stability and change in intelligence from age 12 to age 52: Results from the luxembourg magrip study.Developmental Psychology,49(8), 1529-1543.

Schmidt, F. L. (2002). The role of general cognitive ability and job performance: Why there cannot be a debate.Human Performance, 15(1-2), 187-210.

Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1977). Development of a general solution to the problem of validity generalization.Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(5), 529-540.

Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1978). Moderator research and the law of small numbers.Personnel Psychology,31(2), 215-232.

Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology:Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings.Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 262-274.

Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2004). General mental ability in the world of work: Occupational attainment and job performance.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,86(1), 162-173.

Schmidt, F. L., Hunter, J. E., & Outerbridge, A. N. (1986).Impact of job experience and ability on job knowledge,work sample performance, and supervisory ratings of job performance.Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 432-439.

Schmidt, F. L., Hunter, J. E., & Urry, V. W. (1976).Statistical power in criterion-related validation studies.Journal of Applied Psychology, 61(4), 473-485.

Schmidt, F. L., & Kaplan, L. B. (1971). Composite vs.Multiple criteria: A review and resolution of the controversy.Personnel Psychology, 24(3), 419-434.

Schmidt, F. L., Law, K., Hunter, J. E., Rothstein, H. R.,Pearlman, K., & McDaniel, M. (1993). Refinements in validity generalization methods - implications for the situational specificity hypothesis.Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 3-12.

Schmidt, F. L., Ones, D. S., & Hunter, J. E. (1992). Personnel selection.Annual Review of Psychology, 43(1), 627-670.

Semadar, A., Robins, G., & Ferris, G. R. (2006). Comparing the validity of multiple social effectiveness constructs in the prediction of managerial job performance.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(4), 443-461.

Somers, M. J., & Casal, J. C. (2009). Using artificial neural networks to model nonlinearity the case of the job satisfaction-job performance relationship.Organizational Research Methods, 12(3), 403-417.

Spearman, C. (1904). " General intelligence," objectively determined and measured.The American Journal of Psychology, 15(2), 201-292.

Spearman, C. (1928). "The abilities of man".Science,68(1750), 38-38.

Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2002).The general factor of intelligence: How general is it?.New York:Psychology Press.

Strenze, T. (2007). Intelligence and socioeconomic success:A meta-analytic review of longitudinal research.Intelligence,35(5), 401-426.

Tamez, E., Myerson, J., & Hale, S. (2008). Learning,working memory, and intelligence revisited.Behavioural Processes, 78(2), 240-245.

Tews, M. J., Michel, J. W., & Lyons, B. D. (2010). Beyond personality: The impact of GMA on performance for entry-level service employees.Journal of Service Management, 21(3), 344-362.

Tews, M. J., Michel, J. W., & Noe, R. A. (2011). Beyond objectivity: The performance impact of the perceived ability to learn and solve problems.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79(2), 484-495.

Tracey, J. B., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Kavanagh, M. J. (1995).Applying trained skills on the job: The importance of the work environment.Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(2),239-252.

Tsai, M. C., Cheng, C. C., & Chang, Y. Y. (2010). Drivers of hospitality industry employees' job satisfaction, organizational commitment and job performance.African Journal of Business Management, 4(18), 4118-4134.

Verbruggen, M. (2012). Psychological mobility and career success in the 'new' career climate.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 81(2), 289-297.

Vernon, P. E. (2014).The structure of human abilities(psychology revivals). Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.

Vinchur, A. J., Schippmann, J. S., Switzer, F. S., & Roth, P. L.(1998). A meta-analytic review of predictors of job performance for salespeople.Journal of Applied Psychology,83(4), 586-597.

Viswesvaran, C., Schmidt, F. L., & Ones, D. S. (2005). Is there a general factor in ratings of job performance? A meta-analytic framework for disentangling substantive and error influences.Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1),108-131.

Weiss, H. M. (2002). Deconstructing job satisfaction:Separating evaluations, beliefs and affective experiences.Human Resource Management Review, 12(2), 173-194.

Wulff, C., Bergman, L. R., & Sverke, M. (2009). General mental ability and satisfaction with school and work: A longitudinal study from ages 13 to 48.Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30(4), 398-408.

Ziegler, M., Dietl, E., Danay, E., Vogel, M., & Buehner, M.(2011). Predicting training success with general mental ability, specific ability tests, and (un)structured interviews:A meta-analysis with unique samples.International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 19(2), 170-182.

Ziegler, R., Hagen, B., & Diehl, M. (2012). Relationship between job satisfaction and job performance: Job ambivalence as a moderator.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(8), 2019-2040.