Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Intellectual Competence and Academic Performance: Preliminary Validation of A Model
Intellectual Competence and Academic Performance: Preliminary Validation of A Model
com
Abstract
The present study provides a preliminary empirical test of [Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2004). A possible model to
understand the personality-intelligence interface. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 249264], [Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A.
(2006a). Intellectual competence and the intelligent personality: A third way in differential psychology. Review of General Psychology,
10, 251267]) model of intellectual competence, which conceptualized an integrative framework for understanding the ability and nonability determinants of academic performance (AP). Specifically, we set out to test whether Neuroticism and Extraversion affect selfassessed intelligence (SAI); whether SAI mediates the effects of Neuroticism and Extraversion on AP; and whether Openness (positively)
and Conscientiousness (negatively) mediate the effects of gf on crystallized ability (gc) and AP. Sex differences were also examined.
Using structural equation modelling and analyzing 4-year longitudinal data from a sample of 473 UK university students (316 men and
157 women), wide support was found for the model. Theoretical and applied implications are discussed in relation to the non-ability and
ability determinants of individual differences in educational achievement.
2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Personality; Intelligence; Intellectual competence; Academic performance; Self-assessed intelligence
0160-2896/$ - see front matter 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.intell.2008.01.001
565
566
Fig. 1. The hypothesized Intellectual Competence model linking observed intelligence (gf and gc), self-assessed intelligence (SAI), Extraversion (E),
Neuroticism (N), Openness (O), Conscientiousness (C) and academic performance (AP) (E1 to E7 = error terms associated with the variables).
567
2.3. Measures
2.3.1. Psychometric intelligence
Psychometric intelligence was operationalized in terms
of gf, as measured by the Ravens Advanced Progressive
Matrices test (APM) and gc, as measured by the Mill Hill
Vocabulary Scale (Raven, Raven, & Court, 1998). The
APM test is a well-established measure of abstract
reasoning and is widely regarded as one of the most
reliable tests of g (Carpenter, Just, & Shell, 1990; Undheim,
& Gustafsoon, 1987). Test takers are presented with a
number of items displaying abstract patterns of shapes
organized according to logical rules in a 3 3 matrix where
one of the cells is empty. In order to complete the sequence
correctly, participants must identify the implicit rule by
which items are organized and choose the correct item from
6 to 8 possible alternatives. Item difficulty increases
progressively. The APM has been found to correlate in the
region of r= .60 with the American College Test (ACT)
(Koenig et al., in press); the manual reports a testretest
reliability of .91 for an adult population. In the present study
the APM was administered in 9 min due to time-limitations.
The Mill Hill Vocabulary scales was administered in line
with the 1998 version of the manual and an overall gc score
was obtained by calculating the mean standardized residual
from sets A and B. The manual reports a testre-test
reliability of over .90 for adult populations (Raven et al.,
1998).
2. Methods
2.1. Participants
Participants were 473 students (316 male, 157 female)
from three UK universities. Their age ranged from 1825
(M = 20.31, SD = 3.43 years) at initial time of testing. All
students were fluent in English and took part in the study
in exchange of course-credits. Students were fully
debriefed and if requested feedback on their personality
and ability test scores was provided individually by the
research assistants.
2.2. Procedure
Participants were tested in a quiet lecture hall, in groups
of 5070 students who were supervised by four trained
experimenters. Test administration was counterbalanced
across groups to minimize order effects. All psychometric
data were collected during the first week of the first
academic year. AP data were obtained from the examination offices throughout the four subsequent years and
merged to the overall database by an external administrator
who removed all identification from the file.
568
Table 1
Bivariate correlations among measures
M
1. ZAP
2. SAI
3. gf
4. gc
5. Gender
6. Neuroticism
7. Extraversion
8. Openness
9. Agreeableness
10. Conscientiousness
SD
63.38
8.32
114.04
17.58
20.61
6.71
59.97
7.69
(316 male,
157 female)
101.33
24.97
122.89
22.49
131.28
21.03
115.05
20.86
111.61
25.63
.18
.23
.11
.21
.07
.34
10
.03
.20
.03
.03
.10
.29
.04
.03
.11
.01
.02
.01
.07
.05
.13
.02
.05
.05
.01
.07
.10
.01
.06
.02
.24
.08
.09
.09
.01
.11
.05
.43
.13
.28
.17
.11
.14
.18
.34
p b 0.05, p b 0.01.
Fig. 2. The final Intellectual Competence model linking observed intelligence (gf and gc), self-assessed intelligence (SAI), Neuroticism (N),
Openness (O), Conscientiousness (C) and academic performance (AP).
569
Table 2
Mediation tests
IV
C
N
gf
gf
gf
Sex
Sex
Mediator
Gc
SAI
Gc
C
SAI
N
gf
DV
AP
AP
AP
AP
AP
SAI
SAI
IV to DV direct
.24
.10
.23
.23
.23
.20
.20
IV to mediator
.09
.29
.34
.09
.11
.11
.03
mediator to DV
.21
.18
.21
.24
.18
.29
.11
IV to DV indirect
Sobel test Z
Mediation
.22
.05
.18
.26
.21
.17
.19
1.97
3.42
4.44
2.03
2.29
2.26
0.78
Partial
Full
Partial
Partial
Partial
Partial
Note. p b 0.05. p b 0.01. Abbreviations: IV = independent variable; DV = dependent variable; C = Conscientiousness; N = Neuroticism; SAI =
self-assessed intelligence.
3. Results
3.1. Descriptive and zero-order correlations
Table 1 shows the descriptive and zero-order
correlation coefficients for all measures. AP was Ztransformed in order to standardize the raw measure. As
shown, the strongest correlates of AP were Conscientiousness and gf, followed by gc, SAI, Openness and
Neuroticism. Significant correlations were also found
between SAI and gf, gender and Neuroticism.
3.2. IC model
Structural Equation Modeling through maximumlikelihood estimation was conducted with the AMOS
570
4. Discussion
The present study set out to empirically validate the IC
model put forward by Chamorro-Premuzic and Furnham
(2004, 2005, 2006a). Support was found for most of the
paths underlying the IC model, which achieved good fit
after Extraversion was removed on the basis of its nonsignificant effects on SAI. Indeed, 12 out of 14 of the
predicted mediational paths were supported by the data.
In line with Chamorro-Premuzic and Furnham (2006a),
the effects of gf on AP were partly mediated by
Conscientiousness adding support to the compensation hypothesis. Thus individuals who are quicker, more
efficient, abstract thinkers (basically those capable of
learning new things faster), are lower in achievementstriving, order and self-discipline, leading to lower AP.
Also in line with the IC model, SAI and gc partly mediated
the effects of gf on AP, suggesting that gf leads to higher
academic achievement partly because it is linked to higher
self-estimates of intelligence and higher gc levels. At the
same time, SAI was also affected by sex (males rated their
ability higher than did females) and Neuroticism (stable
individuals rated their ability higher). Moreover, SAI fully
mediated the effect of Neuroticism on AP, such that, when
individual differences in self-estimates of intelligence are
accounted for, higher Neuroticism (i.e., anxiety, depression, self-consciousness, and vulnerability) no longer leads
to lower AP. These results highlight the importance of SAI
as a mediator of the effects of personality (Neuroticism)
and ability (gf) on AP. Furthermore, results showed that
Neuroticism fully mediated the effects of sex on SAI,
indicating that females' self-estimates of ability are lower
than males' self-estimates only because of Neuroticism
differences between women and men (specifically women
scoring higher on Neuroticism).
In regards to Openness, an independent effect of this
trait on AP was found. Interestingly, Openness was neither
significantly associated with gf (which is in line with Bates
& Shieles, 2003; Bates & Rock, 2004b) nor with gc (which
is inconsistent with Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997),
indicating that individual differences in aesthetics, values
and ideas (all of which represent intellectual curiosity) were
independent of cognitive ability levels, though they
affected AP. However, as indicated by the correlations
Openness was modestly but significantly associated with
both ability measures. Thus only when other variables were
taken into account did the links between Openness and
cognitive ability measures drop to non-significant. Moreover, Conscientiousness had a more prominent investment role than Openness, as the former, but not the latter,
was associated with higher gc.
Naturally, there are limitations to the present study.
571
572
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2005). Personality and intellectual competence. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2006a). Intellectual competence and the intelligent personality: A third way in differential
psychology. Review of General Psychology, 10, 251267.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2006b). Self-assessed intelligence
and academic performance. Educational Psychology, 26, 769779.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Furnham, A., & Moutafi, J. (2004). The
relationship between psychometric and estimated personality and
intelligence scores. Journal of Research in Personality, 38,
505513.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Harlaar, N., & Plomin, R. (submitted for
publication). More than just IQ: Longitudinal validity of selfperceived ability in the prediction of academic performance.
Intelligence.
Collis, J. M., & Messick, S. (2001). Intelligence and personality:
Bridging the gap in theory and measurement. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Costa Jr., P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality
Inventory (NEO PI-R) and the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEOFFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources.
Deary, I. J., Strand, S., Smith, P., & Fernandez, C. (2007). Intelligence
and educational achievement. Intelligence, 35, 1321.
Deary, I. J., Whiteman, M. C., Starr, J. M., Whalley, L. J., & Fox, H. C.
(2004). The impact of childhood intelligence on later life:
Following up the Scottish Mental Surveys of 1932 and 1947.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 130147.
Demetriou, A., Kyriakides, L., & Avraamidou, C. (2003). The missing
link in relations between intelligence and personality. Journal of
Research in Personality, 37, 547581.
Denissen, J. J., Zarrett, N. R., & Eccles, J. S. (2007). I like to do it, I'm
able, and I know I am: Longitudinal couplings between domainspecific achievement, self-concept, and interest. Child Development, 78, 430447.
Detterman, D. K., & Daniel, M. H. (1989). Correlations of mental tests
with each other and with cognitive variables are highest for low-IQ
groups. Intelligence, 13, 349359.
Digman, J. M., & Inouye, J. (1986). Further specification of the five
robust factors of personality. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 50, 116123.
Dobson, P. (2000). Neuroticism, extraversion and cognitive test performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8, 99109.
Eysenck, H. J. (1967). The biological basis of personality. Springfield,
IL: C.C.Thomas.
Eysenck, H. J. (1971). Relation between intelligence and personality.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 32, 637638.
Eysenck, H. J., & White, P. O. (1964). Personality and the measurement of
intelligence. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 34, 197202.
Feingold, A. (1994). Sex differences in personality: A meta-analyses.
Psychological Bulletin, 116, 429456.
Fergusson, D. M., & Horwood, L. J. (1997). Gender differences in
educational achievement in a New Zealand birth cohort. New Zealand
Journal of Educational Studies, 32, 8396.
Furnham, A., Moutafi, J., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2005).
Personality and intelligence: Gender, the Big Five, self-estimated
and psychometric intelligence. International Journal of Selection
and Assessment, 13, 1124.
Gignac, G. E. (2005). Openness to experience, general intelligence,
and crystallized intelligence: A methodological extension. Intelligence, 33, 161167.
Guilford, J. P. (1959). Three facets of intellect. American Psychologist, 14,
469479.
573