Meta-Analysis of the Validity of General Mental Ability for Five Performance Criteria: Hunter and Hunter (1984) Revisited
verifiedrich profile · Frontiers in Psychology · 2019
Salgado, Jesús F.; Moscoso, Silvia
How this was studied
A meta-analytic synthesis — it pools many primary studies rather than running a single design, so there is no single-study diagram.
What this article reports
The findings we extracted from this work, normalized into Principia’s relationship form (X → Y). Each feeds the synthesized models below.
general mental ability gma → training performance
general mental ability gma → training performance
general mental ability gma → overall job performance
Models this article informs
The meta-analytic priors this article contributes evidence to — its place in the broader synthesis.
general mental ability gma correlates training performance
general mental ability gma predicts overall job performance
general mental ability gma predicts task performance
general mental ability gma predicts training performance
In the authors’ words
The article’s own abstract.
This paper presents a series of meta-analyses of the validity of general mental ability (GMA) for predicting five occupational criteria, including supervisory ratings of job performance, production records, work sample tests, instructor ratings, and grades. The meta-analyses were conducted with a large database of 467 technical reports of the validity of the General Aptitude Test Battery (GATB) which included 630 independent samples. GMA showed to be a consistent predictor of the five criteria, but the magnitude of the operational validity was not the same across the five criteria. Results also showed that job complexity is a moderator of the GMA validity for the performance criteria. We also found that the GMA validity estimates are slightly smaller than the previous ones obtained by Hunter and Hunter (1984). Finally, we discuss the implications of these findings for the research and practice of personnel selection.
What the literature says about it
Attributed, open-access quotes from other works that cite this article, plus the citation-graph verdict tally. Corroborations and disputes, in one place — the honest-broker view.
supports “Thousands of validity studies and many meta-analyses have shown that they are excellent predictors of different organizational criteria, such as supervisory ratings, work sample tests, job knowledge acquisition, grades, production records, instructor ratings, promotions, sales, and wages, and that the correlation between GMA and performance appears to be similar across jobs that differ considerably in content (Schmidt and Hunter, 1998; Murphy, 2002; Ones et al., 2012; Schmitt, 2014; Salgado, 2017a; Berges et al., 2018; Rodríguez and López-Basterra, 2018).”
Ancillary research
Neighbouring works in the citation graph around this article.
Assembled from Principia’s registry — bibliographic record, extracted effect sizes, the models they inform, and open-access citing literature.