ReviewApplied developmental science2015
Does IQ Really Predict Job Performance?
Review in Applied developmental science, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic Literature Review: Professional Situation of Gifted Adults.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Pooled it
- A dismantling study of comprehensive cognitive remediation for improving employment outcomes: what is the role of computer cognitive training?Psychological medicine · 2025Trial
- Early Employment Outcomes in Autistic and Non-autistic Youth: Challenges and Opportunities.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2025Article
- Verbal and non-verbal skills in early childhood: dimensionality, developmental trajectories, and gender differences.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Measuring the reliability of proxy respondents in behavioural assessments: an open question.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2023Article
- Distortions in Spatial Mental Representation Affect Sketch Maps in Young Adults.Neurology international · 2022Article
- Walking on a minefield: planning, remembering, and avoiding obstacles: preliminary findings.Experimental brain research · 2022Article
- Selecting for Learning Potential: Is Implicit Learning the New Cognitive Ability?Journal of Intelligence · 2022Article
- The Precipitous Decline in Reasoning and Other Key Abilities with Age and Its Implications for Federal Judges.Journal of Intelligence · 2021Article
- The Relational Abilities Index+: Initial Validation of a Functionally Understood Proxy Measure for Intelligence.Perspectives on behavior science · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
IQ has played a prominent part in developmental and adult psychology for decades. In the absence of a clear theoretical model of internal cognitive functions, however, construct validity for IQ tests has always been difficult to establish. Test validity, therefore, has always been indirect, by correlating individual differences in test scores with what are assumed to be other criteria of intelligence. Job performance has, for several reasons, been one such criterion. Correlations of around 0.5 have been regularly cited as evidence of test validity, and as justification for the use of the tests in developmental studies, in educational and occupational selection and in research programs on sources of individual differences. Here, those correlations are examined together with the quality of the original data and the many corrections needed to arrive at them. It is concluded that considerable caution needs to be exercised in citing such correlations for test validation purposes.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.