Yes, but flaws remain

Richard J. Haier*, Sherif Karama, Roberto Colom, Rex Jung, Wendy Johnson

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Hampshire and Owen maintain that their original paper was flawless, but doubts remain about their factor analysis methods and related assumptions. Failure to cite relevant papers, poor sampling and restricted ranges also remain problematic for the definitive conclusions they drew. The editorial review process for investigating the serious issues we raised prior to publication in Neuron remains a mystery. We stand by the opinion expressed in our preview: the Hampshire et al. paper is an interesting but flawed exercise and their conclusions are not as definitive, or original, as they believe. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)341-344
Number of pages4
JournalIntelligence
Volume46
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2014

Keywords

  • Intelligence
  • g-Factor
  • Factor analysis
  • Peer review
  • Brain imaging
  • FRACTIONATING-HUMAN-INTELLIGENCE
  • BLENDED VARIABLE MODELS
  • HAMPSHIRE ET-AL
  • HIGHER-ORDER G
  • MENTAL-ABILITY
  • GENERAL INTELLIGENCE
  • OWEN 2012
  • HIGHFIELD
  • MATTER
  • PARKIN

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Yes, but flaws remain'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this