Search

Scores on the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) predict military job (and training) performance better than any single variable so far identified. However, it remains unclear what factors explain this predictive relationship. Here, we investigated the contributions of fluid intelligence (Gf) and two executive functions—placekeeping ability and attention control—to the relationship between the Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) score from the ASVAB and job-relevant multitasking performance. Psychometric network analyses revealed that Gf and placekeeping ability independently contributed to and largely explained the AFQT–multitasking performance relationship. The contribution of attention control to this relationship was negligible. However, attention control did relate positively and significantly to Gf and placekeeping ability, consistent with the hypothesis that it is a cognitive "primitive" underlying the individual differences in higher-level cognition. Finally, hierarchical regression analyses revealed stronger evidence for the incremental validity of Gf and placekeeping ability in the prediction of multitasking performance than for the incremental validity of attention control. The results shed light on factors that may underlie the predictive validity of global measures of cognitive ability and suggest how the ASVAB might be augmented to improve its predictive validity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A hallmark of intelligent behavior is rationality – the disposition and ability to think analytically to make decisions that maximize expected utility or follow the laws of probability. However, the question remains as to whether rationality and intelligence are empirically distinct, as does the question of what cognitive mechanisms underlie individual differences in rationality. In a sample of 331 participants, we assessed the relationship between rationality and intelligence. There was a common ability underpinning performance on some, but not all, rationality tests. Latent factors representing rationality and general intelligence were strongly correlated (r =.54), but their correlation fell well short of unity. Rationality correlated significantly with fluid intelligence (r =.56), working memory capacity (r =.44), and attention control (r =.49). Attention control fully accounted for the relationship between working memory capacity and rationality, and partially accounted for the relationship between fluid intelligence and rationality. We conclude by speculating about factors rationality tests may tap that other cognitive ability tests miss, and outline directions for further research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What explains the acquisition of exceptional human performance? Does a focus on intensive specialized practice facilitate excellence, or is a multidisciplinary practice background better? We investigated this question in sports. Our meta-analysis involved 51 international study reports with 477 effect sizes from 6,096 athletes, including 772 of the world's top performers. Predictor variables included starting age, age of reaching defined performance milestones, and amounts of coach-led practice and youth-led play (e.g., pickup games) in the athlete's respective main sport and in other sports. Analyses revealed that (a) adult world-class athletes engaged in more childhood/adolescent multisport practice, started their main sport later, accumulated less main-sport practice, and initially progressed more slowly than did national-class athletes; (b) higher performing youth athletes started playing their main sport earlier, engaged in more main-sport practice but less other-sports practice, and had faster initial progress than did lower performing youth athletes; and (c) youth-led play in any sport had negligible effects on both youth and adult performance. We illustrate parallels from science: Nobel laureates had multidisciplinary study/working experience and slower early progress than did national-level award winners. The findings suggest that variable, multidisciplinary practice experiences are associated with gradual initial discipline-specific progress but greater sustainability of long-term development of excellence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Decades of research in industrial-organizational psychology have established that measures of general cognitive ability ( g ) consistently and positively predict job-specific performance to a statistically and practically significant degree across jobs. But is the validity of g stable across different levels of job experience? The present study addresses this question using historical large-scale data across 31 diverse military occupations from the Joint-Service Job Performance Measurement/Enlistment Standards Project ( N = 10,088). Across all jobs, results of our meta-analysis find near-zero interactions between Armed Forces Qualification Test score (a composite of math and verbal scores) and time in service when predicting job-specific performance. This finding supports the validity of g for predicting job-specific performance even with increasing job experience and provides no evidence for diminishing validity of g . We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of these findings, along with directions for personnel selection research and practice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).