EditorialWhat is a good g?
References (51)
- et al.
Multivariate genetic analysis of specific cognitive abilities in the Colorado Adoption Project at age 7
Intelligence
(1992) No demonstration that g is not unitary, but there's more to the story: Comment on Kranzler and Jensen
Intelligence
(1991)The first factor extracted is an unreliable estimate of Spearman's “g”: The case of discrimination reaction time
Intelligence
(1989)Effects of inbreeding on mental ability factors
Personality and Individual Differences
(1983)g: Artifact or reality?
Journal of Vocational Behavior
(1986)Psychometric g as a focus of concerted research effort
Intelligence
(1987)Spearman's hypothesis tested with chronometric information processing tasks
Intelligence
(1993)- et al.
Comparison of black-white differences on the WISC-R and the K-ABC: Spearman's hypothesis
Intelligence
(1987) - et al.
The stability of convergent estimates of g
Intelligence
(1991) Stability of factor loadings
Personality and Individual Differences
(1987)
EQS Structural Equations Program Manual
Intelligence
The factors of the mind: An introduction to factor analysis in psychology
Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies
The eigenvalues-greater-than one rule and the reliability of components
Psychological Bulletin
Derivations of the reliability of components
Psychological Reports
Tandem criteria for analytic rotation in factor analysis
Psychometrika
A first course in factor analysis
A first course in factor analysis
Hereditary genius: An inquiry into its laws and consequences
The mismeasure of man
Factor analysis
Hierarchical models of individual differences
Modern factor analysis
The bi-factor method
Psychometrika
Cited by (230)
The seductive beauty of latent variable models: Or why I don't believe in the Easter Bunny
2024, Personality and Individual DifferencesAcceptance of conditionally automated cars: Just one factor?
2022, Transportation Research Interdisciplinary PerspectivesThe comparability of intelligence test results: Group- and individual-level comparisons of seven intelligence tests
2021, Journal of School PsychologyCitation Excerpt :Furthermore, diagnosticians are advised to exclusively apply intelligence tests with strong evidence for reliability and validity (American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education, 2014; International Test Commission, 2001) in terms of content, construct (i.e., convergent and divergent), and criterion (i.e., concurrent and predictive power) validity. Tests that meet these criteria are assumed to render reliable and valid results, and IQs obtained in different test batteries are expected to be comparable (Floyd et al., 2008) if they are composed of multiple, diverse, and reliable subtests with high loadings on a general intelligence (g) factor (Jensen and Weng, 1994). This assumption is supported by the principle of aggregation (Rushton et al., 1983), which states that the sum of multiple measurements (i.e., IQ based on multiple subtests) represents a more stable predictor than a single measurement (i.e., IQ based on a single subtest) because measurement error is averaged out.
- ∗
For their helpful comments on the first draft of this article, we are grateful to Richard Harshman, the late Henry F. Kaiser, John C. Loehlin, and Malcolm J. Ree. Special thanks are due to John B. Carroll for his trenchant critique of the penultimate draft. Thanks also to Andrew L. Comrey for proving us with the computer program for his Tandem factor analysis.