Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T22:02:25.726Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

All General Factors Are Not Alike

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 October 2015

John P. Campbell
John P. Campbell*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to John P. Campbell, Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, 75 East River Road, Minneapolis, MN 55455. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In their focal article, Ree, Carretta, and Teachout (2015) argue that a large general factor (DGF), defined as the first component of an unrotated principal components solution, is characteristic of many different domains. In their view, ignoring the DGF in assessment and prediction in industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology is counterproductive. They readily acknowledge that the existence of a DGF does not preclude the existence of distinguishable specific factors. Their message is simply that the general factor (unrotated) frequently accounts for over half the reliable variance, and rather than ignore it, the reasons for it and the usefulness of it should be investigated. Further, the general factor is a construct, and all constructs must be supported by the various kinds of evidence that demonstrate construct validity. The DGF is no exception.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , September 2015 , pp. 428 - 434
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

Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & van Heerden, J. (2003). The theoretical status of latent variables. Psychological Review, 110, 203–219. http://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.110.2.203Google Scholar
Campbell, J. P. (2012). Behavior, performance, and effectiveness in the twenty-first century. In Kozlowski, S. W. J. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 159–196). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. http://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199928309.013.0006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, J. P. (2013). Assessment in industrial and organizational psychology: An overview. In Geisinger, K. F., Bracken, B. A., Carlson, J. F., Hansen, J.-I. C., Kuncel, N. R., Reise, S. P., & Rodriguez, M. C. (Eds.), APA handbook of testing and assessment in psychology: Vol. 1. Test theory and testing and assessment in industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 355–395). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://doi.org/10.1037/14047-022Google Scholar
Campbell, J. P., & Knapp, D. J. (Eds.). (2001). Exploring the limits in personnel selection and classification. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Campbell, J. P., & Wiernik, B. M. (2015). The modeling and assessment of work performance. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior. Advance online publication. http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111427Google Scholar
Chang, L., Connelly, B. S., & Geeza, A. A. (2012). Separating method factors and higher order traits of the Big Five: A meta-analytic multitrait-multimethod approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 408–426. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0025559Google Scholar
Connelly, B. S., & Ones, D. S. (2010). An other perspective on personality: Meta-analytic integration of observers’ accuracy and predictive validity. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 1092–1122. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0021212Google Scholar
Dalal, R. S., & Credé, M. (2013). Job satisfaction and other job attitudes. In Geisinger, K. F., Bracken, B. A., Carlson, J. F., Hansen, J.-I. C., Kuncel, N. R., Reise, S. P., & Rodriguez, M. C. (Eds.), APA handbook of testing and assessment in psychology: Vol. 1. Test theory and testing and assessment in industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 355–395). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://doi.org/10.1037/14047-037Google Scholar
Davies, S. E., Connelly, B. L., Ones, D. S., & Birkland, A. S. (2015). The general factor of personality: The “big one,” a self-evaluative trait, or a methodological gnat that won't go away? Personality and Individual Differences. Advance online publication. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.01.006Google Scholar
Diamantopoulos, A., Riefler, P., & Roth, K. P. (2008). Advancing formative measurement models. Journal of Business Research, 61, 1203–1218. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.01.009Google Scholar
Edwards, J. R. (2001). Multidimensional constructs in organizational behavior research: An integrative analytical framework. Organizational Research Methods, 4, 144–192. http://doi.org/10.1177/109442810142004Google Scholar
Fleishman, E. A., Quaintance, M. K., & Broedling, L. A. (1994). Taxonomies of human performance: The description of human tasks. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gottfredson, L. S. (1997). Mainstream science on intelligence: An editorial with 52 signatories, history, and bibliography. Intelligence, 24, 13–23. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-2896(97)90011-8Google Scholar
Haertel, E. H. (2013). Reliability and validity of inferences about teachers based on student test scores. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Retrieved from https://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/PICANG14.pdfGoogle Scholar
Johnson, W., Nijenhuis, J., & Bouchard, T. J. Jr. (2008). Still just 1 g: Consistent results from five test batteries. Intelligence, 36, 81–95. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2007.06.001Google Scholar
Judge, T. A., Hulin, C. L., & Dalal, R. S. (2012). Job satisfaction and job affect. In Kozlowski, S. W. J. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 496–525). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. http://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199928309.013.0015Google 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.Google Scholar
Reeve, C. L., Scherbaum, C., & Goldstein, H. (2015). Manifestations of intelligence: Expanding the measurement space to reconsider specific cognitive abilities. Human Resource Management Review, 25, 28–37.Google Scholar
Schmidt, F. L., & Kaplan, L. B. (1971). Composite vs. multiple criteria: A review and resolution of the controversy. Personnel Psychology, 24, 419–434. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1971.tb00365.xGoogle Scholar
Wiernik, B. M., Wilmot, M. P., & Kostal, J. W. (2015). How data analysis can dominate interpretations of dominant general factors. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 8 (3).Google Scholar