Competency Frameworks, Assessment, and

Development Centre

CFADC – Individual Assignment: Compare and contrast

two articles (Competence rather than intelligence)

Submitted to: Submitted by:

Prof.Kajari Mukherjee Shilpa Lalwani
Compare and contrast between the two articles:
1. McClelland, D. C. 1973. Testing for competence rather than intelligence. American
Psychologist, 28, 1-14.
2. Barrett, G. V., & Depinet, R. L. 1991. A reconsideration of testing for competence rather than
intelligence. American Psychologist, 46 (10), 1012-1024

In the article titled "Testing for Competence Rather Than Intelligence,"

published by the American Psychologist in January 1973, McClelland presents a
paradigm-shifting perspective on intelligence testing, advocating for an assessment of
competencies relevant to real-life success. He critiques the limitations of traditional
intelligence tests, like IQ tests, in accurately predicting performance across various life
domains. Instead, he introduces the concept of "competence," which encompasses specific
skills and abilities crucial for effective functioning in specific contexts.
He emphasizes the distinction between intelligence and competence, with intelligence
reflecting a general cognitive aptitude while competence entails specific skills needed for
success. He introduces the concept of "n Achievement," an operant thought measure that
gauges an individual's need for achievement and motivation to excel in goal-oriented
tasks. This measure, derived from responses to life situations, proves more adept at
predicting diverse life outcomes than traditional intelligence metrics, as it taps into
motivation and goal-driven behaviors.
The article outlines six principles to operationalize the new testing approach:
1. Assess Competencies Relevant to Specific Life Outcomes: Testing should target skills
tied directly to success in education, occupation, and personal growth.
2. Use Operant Thought Measures: Evaluation should extend beyond cognitive abilities
to encompass thought patterns, motives, and behavior impacting real-life
performance.
3. Test for Potential, Not Just Current Abilities: Assessing growth potential across life
situations is crucial, transcending the assessment of present abilities.
4. Consider the Impact of Motivation: Motivation's role in driving behavior and
achievement necessitates its incorporation in the testing process.
5. Evaluate Lifelike Operant Behaviors: Testing should mirror real-life scenarios,
enabling individuals to exhibit problem-solving skills and alternative solutions.
6. Sample Operant Thought Patterns for Maximum Generalizability: Thought codes
should assess abstract behavioral abstractions, fostering greater applicability and
 outcome prediction.
McClelland asserts that embracing these principles will yield more accurate assessments
of individuals' potential in diverse life domains. He proposes a departure from viewing
testing as mere selection tools, advocating for a holistic, behavior-oriented approach that
considers competencies and growth potential.
The article's significance lies in its departure from traditional intelligence testing, aligning
with the demands of modern education and occupations that necessitate a broader skillset.
"n Achievement" introduces dynamism into assessments, capturing motivation and
thought patterns for a more comprehensive understanding of human potential.
However, the article could benefit from empirical support and concrete examples.
Validation studies for "n Achievement" would fortify its superiority over traditional tests.
In conclusion, McClelland's article challenges the intelligence-testing status quo, offering
a pioneering competence-based alternative. By embracing its principles, educators,
psychologists, and organizations can assess potential comprehensively, promoting growth
and success through tailored approaches. This shift from intelligence to competence
evaluation opens doors to a more nuanced understanding of the human potential in
various contexts.

In the article titled "A Reconsideration of Testing for Competence Rather Than
Intelligence," authored by Barrett, G. V., and Depinet, R. L., published by the
American Psychologist in 1991, the authors critically examine the prevailing
practice of using intelligence testing as the primary criterion for employee selection and
job performance assessment. They assert that while intelligence tests have contributed
significantly to the understanding of cognitive abilities, they fail to capture the complexity
of human skills and predict success in real-world contexts. They advocate for a
comprehensive evaluation of competencies, encompassing practical intelligence and non-
cognitive traits, to enhance employee selection and performance prediction.
The authors commence by acknowledging the historical predominance of intelligence
testing in personnel selection and education. However, they caution against the narrow
reliance on intelligence as the sole determinant of job success. They contend that job
performance hinges on multifaceted factors, including specific job-related skills, practical
problem-solving capabilities, motivation, and adaptability.
A central concern raised by the authors pertains to the potential cultural bias inherent in
intelligence tests. They highlight that test items often reflect specific cultural knowledge,
disadvantaging candidates from diverse backgrounds. Socio-economic factors such as
access to education can further influence intelligence test outcomes, leading to disparities
in employment opportunities. The authors underscore the necessity of developing
culturally equitable assessment tools to ensure fair selection practices.
The article underscores the importance of supplementing intelligence testing with
alternative assessment methods. Work samples, job simulations, and assessment centers
emerge as viable options for evaluating job-relevant skills and competencies. Of particular
note are assessment centers, which offer comprehensive evaluations through real work
simulations. However, the authors advocate for clear rating criteria and rater training to
mitigate potential biases.
The authors also emphasize the pivotal role of practical intelligence, defined as the ability
to effectively apply knowledge and skills in practical contexts. They cite research
demonstrating that practical intelligence is a superior predictor of job performance
compared to conventional intelligence tests, particularly in specific scenarios. Practical
intelligence encompasses problem-solving, adaptability, interpersonal skills, and a deep
understanding of job-related tasks. Incorporating practical intelligence assessments aids
organizations in identifying candidates better suited for specific job requirements.
In addition to practical intelligence, the authors delve into non-cognitive traits like
motivation, personality, and creativity. These aspects significantly influence an individual's
approach to tasks, work ethic, and adaptability to diverse work environments. The
inclusion of non-cognitive assessments provides a comprehensive profile of a candidate's
potential for success in specific roles.
Throughout the article, the authors buttress their arguments with research findings. They
stress the importance of ongoing research to enhance employee selection methodologies
and endorse a multifaceted approach. By amalgamating diverse assessment tools,
organizations can yield more precise predictions of job performance, contributing to a
diverse and successful workforce.
To sum up, "A Reconsideration of Testing for Competence Rather Than Intelligence"
challenges the conventional reliance on intelligence testing in employee selection. The
authors advocate for a holistic evaluation of competencies, incorporating practical
intelligence and non-cognitive traits. By adopting a broader spectrum of assessments,
organizations can make more informed decisions regarding candidate suitability for
specific roles, leading to enhanced job performance and overall workforce effectiveness.
______________________________________________________________________

Comparison:
1. Shared Objective: Both articles, "Testing for Competence Rather Than Intelligence"
and "A Reconsideration of Testing for Competence Rather Than Intelligence," share
a common objective of challenging the prevailing reliance on traditional intelligence
testing methods and advocating for a more holistic assessment approach. The
authors of both articles contend that a broader evaluation of competencies is
essential for accurately predicting success in various real-world scenarios.
2. Criticizing Intelligence Testing: Both articles critique the limitations of intelligence
testing. Article 1 argues that intelligence tests fail to encompass the multifaceted
factors contributing to job success, such as practical skills and motivation. Article 2
also emphasizes the shortcomings of intelligence tests in predicting real-life
achievements and highlights the need for a more comprehensive assessment of
competencies.
3. Addressing Cultural Bias: A common concern across both articles is the potential
cultural bias present in intelligence tests. Article 1 raises the issue of test items
rooted in specific cultural knowledge, disadvantaging individuals from diverse
backgrounds. While not explicitly discussing cultural bias, Article 2 introduces the
construct of "n Achievement," which could be influenced by cultural factors affecting
responses to life situations.
4. Non-Cognitive Traits' Emphasis: Both articles stress the importance of non-cognitive
traits in assessing human potential. Article 1 highlights factors like motivation,
personality, and creativity as vital influences on work performance. Article 2
introduces "n Achievement," emphasizing the role of motivation and goal-oriented
behavior in achieving success.
5. Practical Intelligence: Both articles recognize the relevance of practical intelligence
in predicting success. Article 1 underscores research demonstrating the superior
predictive power of practical intelligence in specific contexts. Article 2, while not
explicitly using the term, focuses on competencies that align with practical
intelligence, such as problem-solving and adaptability.
 Contrast:
6. Authors and Publication Dates: The two articles were written by different authors
and published in different years. Article 1 is authored by Barrett, G. V., and Depinet,
R. L., published in 1991, while Article 2 is authored by David C. McClelland, published
in 1973. This difference in authorship and publication dates may shape their
perspectives and theoretical contexts.
7. Proposed Constructs: The articles introduce different constructs to replace
traditional intelligence testing. Article 1 emphasizes practical intelligence and non-
cognitive traits as the central focus of competency assessment. Article 2 introduces
"n Achievement" as an operant thought measure, capturing motivation and goal-
oriented behavior.
8. Evaluation Methods: Article 1 suggests using work samples, simulations, and
assessment centers to assess competencies in job-related contexts. Article 2
outlines principles for assessing thought patterns, motives, and behavioral
tendencies as indicators of competence.
9. Evidence and Validation: Article 1 supports its arguments with research findings
demonstrating the effectiveness of practical intelligence and non-cognitive
assessments in predicting job performance. The article stresses the need for ongoing
research to improve employee selection methods. Article 2 introduces "n
Achievement" but might benefit from additional validation studies to bolster its
predictive validity. In conclusion, both articles challenge conventional intelligence
testing and advocate for a more comprehensive evaluation of competencies to
predict job success. While sharing concerns about cultural bias and the importance
of non-cognitive traits, they differ in the constructs they propose, the assessment
methods they suggest, and the level of empirical evidence supporting their
approaches. Understanding these differences enriches our understanding of the
evolving perspectives on assessing human potential in psychology and employee
selection