Predictive validity of non-g residuals of tests: More than g

Journal of Intelligence

Volumn 2, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 21-25

  Coyle, Thomas R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT SAN ANTONIO   (United States)

Author keywords

ACT; General intelligence (g); Non g residuals; SAT

Indexed keywords

EID: 84930202993     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20793200     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/jintelligence2010021     Document Type: Article

References (8)

1. De Boeck, P. Intelligence, where to look, where to go? J. Intell. 2013, 1, 5–24.
2. Jensen, A.R. The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability; Praeger: Westport, CT, USA, 1998; pp. 270–305.
3. Ree, M.J.; Earles, J.A. Predicting occupational criteria: Not much more than g. In Human Abilities: Their Nature and Measurement; Dennis, I., Tapsfield, P., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 1996; pp. 151–165.
4. Coyle, T.R.; Pillow, D.R. SAT and ACT predict college GPA after removing g. Intelligence 2008, 36, 719–729.
5. Coyle, T.R.; Snyder, A.C.; Purcell, J.M.; Kochunov, P. Non-g residuals of the SAT and ACT predict specific abilities. Intelligence 2013, 41, 114–120.
6. Cattell, R.B. Intelligence: Its Structure, Growth and Action; North-Holland: New York, NY, USA, 1987.
7. Scarr, S.; McCartney, K. How people make their own environments: A theory of genotype →environment effects. Child Dev. 1983, 54, 424–435.
8. Hunt, E.; Jaeggi, S.M. Challenges for research on intelligence. J. Intell. 2013, 1, 36–54.