Given this, would you still prefer we get back into the texts and place specific quotes for some of the items?
(P3). Regarding the interpretation of the first statement (quoted in P3), I was interpreting e.g., "language fluency" differently. Presumably you are thinking of e.g., "verbal ability"; I was thinking of knowledge of the specific languages in question. Clearly, net of g, a person who could well speak both Mandarin and English would make for a better Mandarin-English language interpreter than would someone who could only speak English. This statement is ambiguous because, at least in common speech, the term "language fluency" is. Though perhaps the meaning is obvious in context to IO discussions. If so, I withdraw that claim.
Regarding the second statement, on re-reading, yes, you are correct, specifically because the author says "require" and "have to be good at".
As for the specific-general ability debate, some narrative discussions give a different slant:
The consensual answer to this question, however, as provided by studies and reviews on this topic is that no incremental contribution should be expected from specific cognitive abilities (Viswesvaran & Ones, 2002). Implications of this conclusion include using aggregate scores of general mental ability and disregarding specific cognitive abilities in requirement analyses and assessment
This conclusion, however, is challenged by recent metaanalytical evidence showing that specific cognitive abilities serve as additional or even more important predictors than general mental ability (Goertz et al., 2014; Lang et al., 2010; Ziegler et al., 2011). For instance, Goertz et al. revealed substantial correlations between specific cognitive abilities and training success that were comparable in strength to those usually obtained for general mental ability. Applying relative importance analysis, Lang et al. found some specific cognitive abilities to be more important for job performance than general mental ability. Finally, Ziegler et al. examined the incremental validity of specific cognitive ability in predicting training performance and found that several specific abilities were able to explain incremental variance in different training performance domains. While meta-analytic evidence thus far is based on German samples only, other primary studies with nonGerman samples further speak to a shift in paradigm (e.g., Mount, Oh, & Burns, 2008; Stanhope & Surface, 2014; Webb et al., 2007). This is not to say that all recent studies reveal evidence demonstrating that specific cognitive abilities predict work-related outcomes beyond general mental ability (e.g., Brown, Le, & Schmidt, 2006; Lievens, 2004). However, the changing picture calls for further research on moderators of the incremental contribution of specific cognitive abilities or boundary conditions of the dominant role of general mental ability. (Krumm et al. (2014). Specific cognitive abilities at work: A brief summary from two perspectives.)
However, there are at least two methodological issues that cast doubt on the conclusion that there is “not much more than g” (Reeve, 2004). First, much of the prior research relied on the observed subscale scores of a test battery (as defined at the discretion of test constructor) as a construct-valid surrogate for specific ability constructs (e.g., Hunter, 1986; Thorndike, 1991). By ignoring the fact that most test sub-scales confound sources of variance due to multiple specific and general abilities, these studies would have failed to obtain “clean” construct-valid assessments of specific abilities. Thus, the correlations with outcomes reflect both the variance due to ‘g’ as well as the unique variance due to the specific factor. A clear understanding of the unique value of specific abilities requires the contribution of ‘g’ to be removed (e.g., see Gustafsson, 2002, for an excellent discussion on this issue). Although Ree and Earles (1991) attempted to avoid the problem of confounded sources of variance, their reliance on atheoretical principal components is subject to the same general criticism. These principal components do not necessarily reflect any specific ability construct (as Ree & Earles, 1991 note). Moreover, recent research using analytical techniques that address the problem of the relationships between the general and specific abilities has found that the general factor accounts for much less of the explainable variance than previously believed and that the specific factors are more important in some cases (Lang, Kersting, Hülsheger, & Lang, 2010). (Reeve et al. (2015). Manifestations of intelligence: Expanding the measurement space to reconsider specific cognitive abilities.)
Apparently, the problem isn't just how intelligence is discussed in text books. Many researchers and practitioners seem to believe that specific abilities are of importance. Here were some survey results:
A survey of 703 HR scientist and practitioner members of the Society for I/O Psychology found that 82.6% of the respondents endorsed the statement, “Different jobs are likely to require different types of cognitive abilities,” and only 25.1% of the respondents endorsed the statement, “Combinations of specific aptitude tests have little advantage over measures of general cognitive ability in personnel selection,” (Murphy, Cronin, & Tam, 2003). (Schneider et al. 2015. Intelligence is multidimensional: Theoretical review and implications of specific cognitive abilities.)
It's possible that the 80% are just wrong. Alternatively, some of the differences in opinion could be due to the interpretation of the question asked:
(1) Different jobs are likely to require different types of cognitive abilities (i.e., specific abilities) for general performance (which are assessed by overall job performance measures).
(2) Different jobs are likely to require different types of cognitive abilities (i.e., specific abilities) for specific tasks (which are more assessed by job training measures).
See Schneider et al.'s (2015) model.
Anyways, because there are different readings of the literature and possibly different interpretations of the questions, I still feel that it is important to give a couple of specific examples and explanations, so readers can get a better idea of how you are grading passages. These can be placed in the supplementary file and the process should take you no more than 10 minutes.