中文导读 明尼苏达大学博士生 Saron Demeke 等人在《商业与心理学杂志》（Journal of Business and Psychology）发表的综合分析表明，一般智力测验对整体工作表现的预测力，远低于教科书长期引用的旧标准。作者合并三项覆盖1990–2022年研究的近期元分析、剔除重复样本后，共纳入212个独立样本、逾10.9万名劳动者。经多种统计校正后，当代相关约为0.18–0.22，作者建议以0.20作为实用平均估计，不到1998年综述常引的约0.51的一半；校正前的原始相关也仅为0.14。研究还发现，并非单纯“脑力要求越高测验越准”：与信息处理相关的认知复杂度几乎无关，人际复杂度也无明显联系；测验在动手与技术复杂度较高、尤其是脑力与动手问题求解并重的岗位上更有效。作者推测，当今工作更强调团队协作与沟通，以及求职者能力分布更趋同，可能削弱了测验的区分度。结论并非说智力无关，而是建议把它与结构化面试、工作样本等一并使用。文中据PsyPost 10月18日报道及该刊论文摘要改写。
正文 For decades , many textbooks told hiring managers that a general intelligence test was the single best way to predict how well someone would do at work . A new analysis of recent workplace studies challenges that familiar claim Led by Saron Demeke at the University of Minnesota , researchers combined three modern reviews , removed overlapping samples , and examined more than 109,000 workers across 212 independent samples drawn from studies published between 1990 and 2022.
本段译文 几十年来，许多教科书告诉招聘管理者：一般智力测验是预测一个人工作表现的最佳单一办法。一项针对近期职场研究的新分析，对这一常见说法提出了挑战。由明尼苏达大学的 Saron Demeke 牵头，研究者合并了三项现代综述、剔除了重叠样本，并考察了1990年至2022年间发表研究中的212个独立样本、逾10.9万名劳动者。
Their summary estimate is much lower than the old benchmark . In an influential review , the correlation between general mental ability and overall job performance was often cited as about .51. After careful checks for restricted applicant pools and imperfect supervisor ratings , the new team places today’s figure between .18 and .22, and suggests .20 as a practical average — less than half the historical number . Even before those statistical adjustments , the raw modern correlation was only .14, compared with .24 in older databases built mostly before the mid -1980s .
本段译文 他们的综合估计远低于旧基准。在一篇影响很大的1998年综述中，一般心理能力与整体工作表现之间的相关常被引为约0.51。在仔细校正申请者分数受限以及上级评价不完美等因素后，新团队将今天的数字放在0.18到0.22之间，并建议把0.20当作实用平均——不到历史数字的一半。即便在这些统计校正之前，现代原始相关也只有0.14，而主要建于20世纪80年代中期以前的旧数据库约为0.24。
The researchers also tested a long-held idea : that intelligence tests work best in the most mentally demanding jobs . Using a federal database of job characteristics , they scored occupations on demands involving information , people , and hands-on equipment . Cognitive demand alone barely predicted how useful the tests were . Interpersonal demand showed little link either . By contrast , jobs with more manual and technical complexity showed a stronger link , and the tests performed best where thinking and hands-on problem solving were combined — for example , inspecting machines and troubleshooting complex equipment
本段译文 研究者还检验了一个长期观点：智力测验在脑力要求最高的岗位上最有效。他们借助一份联邦岗位特征数据库，按信息、人际和动手设备等方面的要求给职业打分。单看认知要求，几乎无法预测测验有多有用；人际要求也几乎看不出联系。相比之下，动手与技术复杂度更高的岗位联系更强；测验在思考与动手解决问题相结合的岗位上表现最好——例如检查机器、排除复杂设备故障。
Why might the link look weaker today ? The authors point to two likely changes , though they did not test them directly . Much work now emphasizes teamwork , communication , and adaptability , so supervisors may rate a wider mix of skills when they judge overall performance . Applicant pools also appear more similar in ability than in earlier decades , which leaves less score variation for a test to separate stronger candidates from average ones .
本段译文 为什么今天的联系可能显得更弱？作者指出两种可能的变化，尽管他们并未直接验证。如今许多工作更强调团队合作、沟通与适应能力，因此上级在评价整体表现时可能纳入更广的技能组合。求职者群体在能力上也比早年更趋同，测验可用于区分较强与一般候选人的分数差异也就更小。
The findings do not mean intelligence is irrelevant at work . Prior research still clearly finds stronger links with success in formal job training , and a correlation near .20 remains useful for large employers . Outside experts note that informal interviews are often weaker predictors . Demeke’s practical message is modest : treat cognitive tests as one tool among others — such as structured interviews and work samples rather than as a standalone measure of future success
本段译文 这些发现并不意味着智力在工作中无关紧要。既往研究仍清楚显示，它与正式岗位培训中的成功有更强联系；接近0.20的相关对大型雇主仍有用。外部专家指出，非正式面试的预测力往往更弱。Demeke 的现实建议很克制：把认知测验当作多种工具之一——例如与结构化面试、工作样本一起用——而不是单独衡量未来成败的标准。
新闻来源