TU Darmstadt / ULB / TUprints

Sometimes More is Too Much: A Rejoinder to the Commentaries on Greiff et al. (2015)

Greiff, Samuel ; Stadler, Matthias ; Sonnleitner, Philipp ; Wolff, Christian ; Martin, Romain (2024)
Sometimes More is Too Much: A Rejoinder to the Commentaries on Greiff et al. (2015).
In: Journal of Intelligence, 2017, 5 (1)
doi: 10.26083/tuprints-00016448
Article, Secondary publication, Publisher's Version

Copyright Information: CC BY 4.0 International - Creative Commons, Attribution.

Download (244kB) | Preview
Item Type: Article
Type of entry: Secondary publication
Title: Sometimes More is Too Much: A Rejoinder to the Commentaries on Greiff et al. (2015)
Language: English
Date: 16 January 2024
Place of Publication: Darmstadt
Year of primary publication: 2017
Place of primary publication: Basel
Publisher: MDPI
Journal or Publication Title: Journal of Intelligence
Volume of the journal: 5
Issue Number: 1
Collation: 10 Seiten
DOI: 10.26083/tuprints-00016448
Corresponding Links:
Origin: Secondary publication DeepGreen

In this rejoinder, we respond to two commentaries on the study by Greiff, S.; Stadler, M.; Sonnleitner, P.; Wolff, C.; Martin, R. Sometimes less is more: Comparing the validity of complex problem solving measures. Intelligence 2015, 50, 100–113. The study was the first to address the important comparison between a classical measure of complex problem solving (CPS) and the more recent multiple complex systems (MCS) approach regarding their validity. In the study, we investigated the relations between one classical microworld as the initially developed method (here, the Tailorshop) with three more recently developed multiple complex systems (MCS; here, MicroDYN, Genetics Lab, and MicroFIN) tests. We found that the MCS tests showed higher levels of convergent validity with each other than with the Tailorshop even after reasoning was controlled for, thus empirically distinguishing between the two approaches. The commentary by Kretzschmar and the commentary by Funke, Fischer, and Holt expressed several concerns with how our study was conducted, our data was analyzed, and our results were interpreted. Whereas we acknowledge and agree with some of the more general statements made in these commentaries, we respectfully disagree with others, or we consider them to be at least partially in contrast with the existing literature and the currently available empirical evidence.

Uncontrolled Keywords: complex problem solving, multiple complex systems, Tailorshop, reasoning, intelligence, validity, structural equation modeling
Status: Publisher's Version
URN: urn:nbn:de:tuda-tuprints-164487
Classification DDC: 100 Philosophy and psychology > 150 Psychology
Divisions: 03 Department of Human Sciences > Institute for Psychology > Organisations- und Wirtschaftspsychologie
Date Deposited: 16 Jan 2024 10:45
Last Modified: 02 Apr 2024 12:24
SWORD Depositor: Deep Green
URI: https://tuprints.ulb.tu-darmstadt.de/id/eprint/16448
PPN: 51670964X
Actions (login required)
View Item View Item