The importance of intellectual talent to achievement in all professional domains is well established, but less is known about other individual differences that predict success. The authors tested the importance of 1 noncognitive trait: grit. Defined as perseverance and passion for long-term goals, grit accounted for an average of 4% of the variance in success outcomes, including educational attainment among 2 samples of adults (N=1,545 and N=690), grade point average among Ivy League undergraduates (N=138), retention in 2 classes of United States Military Academy, West Point, cadets (N=1,218 and N=1,308), and ranking in the National Spelling Bee (N=175). Grit did not relate positively to IQ but was highly correlated with Big Five Conscientiousness. Grit nonetheless demonstrated incremental predictive validity of success measures over and beyond IQ and conscientiousness. Collectively, these findings suggest that the achievement of difficult goals entails not only talent but also the sustained and focused application of talent over time.

https://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/92/6/1087.pdf

Grit: Perseverance and Passion for Long-Term Goals

Pedagosko i psiholosko testiranje i procjenjivanje spadaju među najvažnije doprinose znanosti o ponasanju nasem drustvu i pružaju temeljna i znacajna poboljsanja u odnosu na ranije postupke. Iako se ne može ustvrditi da su svi testovi dovoljno usavrseni niti da su sva testiranja razborita i korisna, postoji velika kolicina informacija koje ukazuju na ucinkovitost kvalitetnih instrumenata u onim situacijama u kojima je njihovo koristenje potkrijepljeno validacijskim podacima. Pravilna upotreba testova može dovesti do boljih odluka o pojedincima i programima nego sto bi to bio slucaj bez njihovog koristenja, a također i ukazati na put za siri i pravedniji pristup obrazovanju i zaposljavanju. Međutim, losa upotreba testova može dovesti do zamjetne stete nanesene ispitanicima i drugim sudionicima u procesu donosenja odluka na temelju testovnih podataka. Cilj Standarda je promoviranje kvalitetne i eticne upotrebe testova te uspostavljanje osnovice za ocjenu kvalitete postupaka testiranja. Svrha objavljivanja Standarda je uspostavljanje kriterija za evaluaciju testova, provedbe testiranja i posljedica upotrebe testova. Iako bi evaluacija prikladnosti testa ili njegove primjene trebala ovisiti prvenstveno o strucnim misljenjima, Standardi pružaju okvir koji osigurava obuhvacanje svih relevantnih pitanja. Bilo bi poželjno da svi autori, sponzori, nakladnici i korisnici profesionalnih testova usvoje Standarde te da poticu druge da ih također prihvate.

Standards for educational and psychological testing

The traditional conception of validity divides it into three separate and substitutable types—namely, content, criterion, and construct validities. This view is fragmented and incomplete, especially because it fails to take into account both evidence of the value implications of score meaning as a basis for action and the social consequences of score use. The new unified concept of validity interrelates these issues as fundamental aspects of a more comprehensive theory of construct validity that addresses both score meaning and social values in test interpretation and test use. That is, unified validity integrates considerations of content, criteria, and consequences into a construct framework for the empirical testing of rational hypotheses about score meaning and theoretically relevant relationships, including those of an applied and a scientific nature. Six distinguishable aspects of construct validity are highlighted as a means of addressing central issues implicit in the notion of validity as a unified concept. These are content, substantive, structural, generalizability, external, and consequential aspects of construct validity. In effect, these six aspects function as general validity criteria or standards for all educational and psychological measurement, including performance assessments, which are discussed in some detail because of their increasing emphasis in educational and employment settings.

/pdf/validity-of-psychological-assessment-validation-of-2zgxanmue5.pdf

Validity of Psychological Assessment: Validation of Inferences from Persons' Responses and Performances as Scientific Inquiry into Score Meaning.

Much research in the last two decades has demon- strated that human responses deviate from the performance deemed normative according to various models of decision mak- ing and rational judgment (e.g., the basic axioms of utility theory). This gap between the normative and the descriptive can be inter- preted as indicating systematic irrationalities in human cognition. However, four alternative interpretations preserve the assumption that human behavior and cognition is largely rational. These posit that the gap is due to (1) performance errors, (2) computational limitations, (3) the wrong norm being applied by the experi- menter, and (4) a different construal of the task by the subject. In the debates about the viability of these alternative explanations, attention has been focused too narrowly on the modal response. In a series of experiments involving most of the classic tasks in the heuristics and biases literature, we have examined the implica- tions of individual differences in performance for each of the four explanations of the normative/descriptive gap. Performance er- rors are a minor factor in the gap; computational limitations un- derlie non-normative responding on several tasks, particularly those that involve some type of cognitive decontextualization. Un- expected patterns of covariance can suggest when the wrong norm is being applied to a task or when an alternative construal of the task should be considered appropriate.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S0140525X00003435

Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate?

e w id r as e, se er t st al h r Overweight or obesity in adolescents has reache epidemic proportions in the USA and other industr alized countries. These conditions, although ofte lumped together in research and in commentarie reflect adolescents’ being toward the heavier point a continuum that would range from underweight morbidly obese. The terms may be used interchang ably, but there is no doubt that, in the US a considerable percentage of adolescents suffer fro too much body fat. The prevalence of obesity (bod mass index [BMI] >95th percentile) among adole cents aged 12–19 years is now one in six (17.6%); an one in three (34.9%) US adolescents are overweight obese (BMI>85th percentile) (Story et al. 2009). Oth industrialized countries, such as Canada, Japa Germany, and China also are beginning to experien increasing problems related to obesity (Cornette 2008 Being on the overweight side of the weight continuu means being afflicted with a serious, chronic disea that can cause substantial harm to adolescents’ curre and future health. Although terms may be used loosely, individua only are formally deemed obese by physicians. The are some rules of thumb and formulas that often a used, especially in social science studies, but physician diagnose whether adolescents are obese. Discussion measurements tends to focus on that diagnos A diagnosis of obesity typically involves using a bod mass index (BMI). BMI is a measure of weight propo tionate to height, which is deemed a useful measure the amount of body fat. Although there are other mo precise ways to measure excess fat, experts now recom mend using BMI because it is easily obtained, strong

Obesity and Overweight

Circumscription and Compromise: A Developmental Theory of Occupational Aspirations.

Why g matters: The complexity of everyday life

Mainstream science on intelligence: An editorial with 52 signatories, history, and bibliography

Large epidemiological studies of almost an entire population in Scotland have found that intelligence (as measured by an IQ-type test) in childhood predicts substantial differences in adult morbidity and mortality, including deaths from cancers and cardiovascular diseases. These relations remain significant after controlling for socioeconomic variables. One possible, partial explanation of these results is that intelligence enhances individuals' care of their own health because it represents learning, reasoning, and problem-solving skills useful in preventing chronic disease and accidental injury and in adhering to complex treatment regimens.

/pdf/intelligence-predicts-health-and-longevity-but-why-1ixs6dwb8x.pdf

Intelligence Predicts Health and Longevity, but Why?

Virtually all indicators of physical health and mental competence favor persons of higher socioeconomic status (SES). Conventional theories in the social sciences assume that the material disadvantages of lower SES are primarily responsible for these inequalities, either directly or by inducing psychosocial harm. These theories cannot explain, however, why the relation between SES and health outcomes (knowledge, behavior, morbidity, and mortality) is not only remarkably general across time, place, disease, and kind of health system but also so finely graded up the entire SES continuum. Epidemiologists have therefore posited, but not yet identified, a more general "fundamental cause" of health inequalities. This article concatenates various bodies of evidence to demonstrate that differences in general intelligence (g) may be that fundamental cause.

/pdf/intelligence-is-it-the-epidemiologists-elusive-fundamental-22lkchbeke.pdf

Linda S. Gottfredson

Papers

Circumscription and Compromise: A Developmental Theory of Occupational Aspirations.

Why g matters: The complexity of everyday life

Mainstream science on intelligence: An editorial with 52 signatories, history, and bibliography

Intelligence Predicts Health and Longevity, but Why?

Intelligence: Is It the Epidemiologists' Elusive "Fundamental Cause" of Social Class Inequalities in Health?