More than g: Evidence for the Incremental Validity of Performance-Based Assessments for Predicting Training Performance

Past research has consistently shown that tests measuring specific cognitive abilities provide little if any incremental validity over tests of general mental ability when predicting performance on the job. In this study, we suggest that the seeming lack of incremental validity may have been due to the type of content that has traditionally been assessed. Therefore, we hypothesised that incremental validity can be obtained using specific cognitive abilities that are less highly correlated with g and are matched to the tasks performed on the job. To test this, we examined a recently developed performance-based measure that assesses a number of cognitive abilities related to training performance. In a sample of 310 US Navy student pilots, results indicated that performance-based scores added sizeable incremental validity to a measure of g. The significant increases in R² ranged from .08 to .10 across criteria. Similar results were obtained after correcting correlations for range restriction, though the magnitude of incremental validity was slightly smaller (ΔR² ranged from .05 to .07).     

Dark Motives and Elective Use of Brainteaser Interview Questions

Brainteaser interview questions such as “Estimate how many windows are in New York” are just one example of aggressive interviewer behaviour that lacks evidence for validity and is unsettling to job applicants. This research attempts to shed light on the motives behind such behaviour by examining the relation between dark-side traits and the perceived appropriateness of brainteaser interview questions. A representative sample of working adults (n = 736) was presented with a list of interview questions that were either traditional (e.g., “Are you a good listener?”), behavioural (e.g., “Tell me about a time when you failed”), or brainteaser in nature. Results of a multiple regression, controlling for interviewing experience and sex, showed that narcissism and sadism explained the likelihood of using brainteasers in an interview. A subsequent bifactor analysis showed that these dark traits shared a callousness general factor. A second longitudinal study of employed adults with hiring experience demonstrated that perspective-taking partially mediated the relationship between this general factor and the perceived helpfulness and abusiveness of brainteaser interview questions. These results suggest that a callous indifference and a lack of perspective-taking may underlie abusive behaviour in the employment interview.