Development of a Causal Model of Processes Determining Job Performance

6. M. Morales, The function of general and spe cific abilities in the validity of the Air Force Officer Qualifying Test, unpublished master's thesis, St. Mary's University of Texas, San Antonio (1991). 7. M.J. Ree, J.A. Earles, and M. Teachout, Gen era/ Cognitive Ability Predicts Job Performance, AL TR-1991-0057 (Armstrong Laboratory, Brooks AFB, TX, 1991). 8. N. Stewart, A.G.C.T. scores of Army person nel grouped by occupation, Occupations, 26, 1-37 (1947). It is interesting to note that job hierarchies are not new and that Deuteronomy 29:9 presents a list with managers and overseers at the top and hew ers of wood at the bottom. A.R. Jensen noted that even relatively mundane tasks such as cooking rely on intelligence: Army cooks who could successfully make jelly rolls had higher scores on g-loaded tests than those who could not; Straight Talk About Men tal Tests (Free Press, New York, 1981). 9. R.J. Sternberg, Death, taxes, and bad intelli gence tests, Intelligence, 15, 257-269 (1991). There are a few people who want competency tests, which are even more content specific than typical aptitude tests. The rationale for competency tests has been dispelled by G.V. Barrett and R.L. Depinet, A re consideration of testing for competence rather than for intelligence, American Psychologist, 46, 1012? 1024(1991). 10. R. Cattell, Intelligence: Its Structure, Growth and Action (Elsevier Science Publishing, New York, 1987). This is a revised version of Cattell's Abilities: Their Structure, Growth and Action, published in 1971. In this revision, he elucidates the investment theory and his concepts of fluid and crystallized in telligence. Note the significant change in the title from the original.