| Abstract: | In the present research two studies are used to investigate the relation between g loading of tests and practice (test‐retest) and coaching (active teaching) effects. The data on practice do not support the hypothesis that the higher a test’s g loading, the less susceptible it is to preparation, but the data on coaching support the hypothesis. There is evidence that practice and coaching reduce the g‐loadedness of a collection of tests. The implications of these results for predictive validity, practical usability of the tests, the relevance of traditional intelligence taxonomies, and for future research are discussed. |
