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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nijenhuis et al. (2001) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: