Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31162384›Full record

ArticleJournal of Intelligence2019

Commenting on the "Great Debate": General Abilities, Specific Abilities, and the Tools of the Trade.

Margaret E Beier, Harrison J Kell, Jonas W B Lang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of Intelligence, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Margaret E BeierDepartment of Psychological Sciences, Rice University, Houston, TX 77005, USA. beier@rice.edu.
Harrison J KellAcademic to Career Research Center, Research & Development, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ 08541, USA. hkell@ets.org.
Jonas W B LangDepartment of Personnel Management, Work, and Organizational Psychology, Ghent University, Henri Dunantlaan 2, 9000 Ghent, Belgium. Jonas.Lang@UGent.be.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We review papers in the special issue regarding the great debate on general and specific abilities. Papers in the special issue either provided an empirical examination of the debate using a uniform dataset or they provided a debate commentary. Themes that run through the papers and that are discussed further here are that: (1) the importance of general and specific ability predictors will largely depend on the outcome to be predicted, (2) the effectiveness of both general and specific predictors will largely depend on the quality and breadth of how the manifest indicators are measured, and (3) research on general and specific ability predictors is alive and well and more research is warranted. We conclude by providing a review of potentially fruitful areas of future research.

Indexed as

cognitive abilitiescognitive testsgeneral abilitiesgeneral mental abilityintelligencenarrow abilitiesrelative importancespecific abilitiessubscores

Identifiers

PMID31162384
PMCPMC6526427

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.