Learning and Individual Differences 19 (2009) 486–491

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Learning and Individual Differences

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / l i n d i f

Intellectual competence and academic performance: A Spanish study

Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic a,⁎,1, Maria Angeles Quiroga b, Roberto Colom c
a
Goldsmiths, University of London, United Kingdom
b
Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain
c
Universidad Autonoma de Madrid, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study assessed the explanatory power of the intellectual competence (IC) model for understanding the
Received 7 October 2008 relationship among the main ability and non-ability determinants of academic performance (AP) in a sample
Received in revised form 20 March 2009 of Spanish undergraduates. Thus it attempted to replicate the preliminary evidence for this model provided
Accepted 22 May 2009
in a recent UK study and expand on it by including more comprehensive measures of intelligence and AP.
Results showed mixed support for individual paths, but good support for the overall model. The expanded IC
Keywords:
Academic performance
model showed that some individual difference factors explain AP variance that is common to high school,
Intellectual competence university entry, and university exam grades, whereas other individual differences explained AP variance
Personality specific to university. Inconsistencies, limitations, and implications are discussed.
Intelligence © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Intellectual competence and academic performance: A Spanish
replication and extension
Although correlations between ability tests, which measure maxi-
mal performance, and personality inventories, which assess typical
performance, are at best moderate (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997;
Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2004), both intelligence (Brody, 1997;
Colom, Escorial, Shih, & Privado, 2007; Colom & Flores-Mendoza, 2007;
Deary, Whiteman, Starr, Whaley, & Fox, 2004; Gottfredson, 2004;
Jensen, 1980; Petrill & Wilkerson, 2000; Thorndike, 1985) and
personality (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2003a,b; Colom et al.,
2007; see O'Connor & Paunonen, 2007) predict academic performance
(AP). An explicit attempt to answer the question of how different
predictors of AP are related isChamorro-Premuzic and Furnham's
(2004, 2005, 2006a) theory of intellectual competence (IC), which
starts from the premise that since AP is the criterion par excellence—the
“raison d'etre” (Deary, Strand, Smith, & Fernandez, 2007, p.13)—for
validating intelligence (see also Binet, 1905; Rinderman & Neubauer,
2004, p.575; Spearman, 1904), personality traits and self-perceived
abilities that are related to AP should also be considered indicative of
individuals' intellectual competence, particularly if their effects on AP
are independent of cognitive ability (e.g., g or IQ). More specifically, IC
postulates that the personality traits of Conscientiousness (primarily
through effortful and ambitious achievement-striving) and Openness
or Intellect (primarily through intrinsic interests and intellectual
curiosity) have motivational effects on the development of novel
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: pss02tc@gold.ac.uk (T. Chamorro-Premuzic).
1
The reported research was supported by a British Academy Small Grant ("Learning
and Individual Differences").
abilities and acquisition of knowledge, which should translate into
higher AP, and that two other personality traits, namely Neuroticism
and Extraversion, affect individuals' perceptions of their own abilities
(independently of “actual” ability), which, in turn, impact on AP
(seeChamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2004, 2005, 2006a).
The main applied argument for validating the IC model is that knowl-
edge of the overlap among (or independence of) different constructs
linked to individual differences in AP is likely to improve the accuracy in
the prediction of educational achievement, which, in turn, is a major
predictor of occupational outcomes (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham,
2009), such as job performance (Roth, Be Vier, Switzer, & Schippman,
1996), salary (Roth & Clarke, 1998), and health-related outcomes (Bogg &
Roberts, 2004; Der, Batty, & Deary, submitted for publication).
The theoretical argument is that information on how different ability
and non-ability traits “partner” (have independent effects) or “compete”
(mediate each other) to explain variance in AP is likely to increase our
understanding of the psychological processes underlying individual
differences in educational achievement. Thus certain constructs (e.g.,
Neuroticism or self-estimated IQ) may describe some of the processes
(e.g., anxiety or confidence) by which other variables (e.g., sex or
intelligence) affect AP, explaining, in part, why certain individuals (e.g.,
women or those high in Openness) do better than others.
To date, however, only one study provided empirical evidence to
validate the IC model. Chamorro-Premuzic and Arteche's (2008) found
that, in line with predictions derived from the IC model, Conscien-
tiousness having the strongest single effects on AP (explaining 4% of
unique variance); that Neuroticism partly explained sex differences in
self-assessed intelligence, which, in turn, explained some of the effects
of fluid intelligence (gf) and all of the effects of Neuroticism on AP; that
crystallized intelligence (gc) partly explained the effects of Conscien-
tiousness and gf on AP, and that Conscientiousness partly explained

1041-6080/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2009.05.002
 T. Chamorro-Premuzic et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 19 (2009) 486–491
the effects of gf on AP. Chamorro-Premuzic and Arteche's (2008) paper
provided important evidence for the IC model, but, clearly, a single
study may only be considered preliminary evidence. Thus the current
study attempted to replicate the findings of Chamorro-Premuzic and
Arteche (referred, from here onwards, as the “target paper or study”).
Specifically, we aimed to assess to what degree their model—described
in the current results section and graphically depicted in Fig. 1—could
successfully explain comparable Spanish data. Moreover, the current
study also expanded on the target paper by including broader
measures of intelligence and AP, looking not only at university exam
results, but also previous grades.
2. Method
This study tested 248 Spanish undergraduate students (81.0%
females) with a mean age of 20.1 years (SD = 2.4) ranging from 18 to
40 years, who participated to complete a part of their academic
curriculum (obtaining course credits).
2.1. Measures
1) Intelligence: Factors of gf, gc and visual intelligence (gv) were each
operationalized by a set of three tests2 including Raven's Advanced
Progressive Matrices (APM), Solid figures (Yela, 1969), three tests
from the Primary Mental Ability battery (Thurstone, 1938) and
four tests from the Differential Aptitude Test Battery (Bennet,
Seashore, & Wesman, 1990) (see Table 1).
2) Personality traits were assessed within the framework of the Big
Five using the Spanish standardization of the NEO-FFI (Costa &
McCrae, 1992). The measurement comprises 60 items measuring
Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and
Openness to experience. The items are answered on a five point
scale, ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. The
internal consistencies for the scales reported in the manual range
from .68 (Agreeableness) to .86 (Conscientiousness and Neuroti-
cism). For the current sample the reliabilities were .87 for
Neuroticism; .88 for Extroversion; .79 for Openness; .69 for
Agreeableness and .85 for Conscientiousness.
3) Self-Assessed Intelligence (SAI) was assessed through a 14-item
inventory that requires participants to estimate their multiple
abilities (e.g., mathematical, spatial, inter-personal, and musical)
on a standardized IQ bell curve (i.e., a normal distribution of scores
showing appropriate labels and a Mean of 100 and SD of 15 points
for the overall population). As scores were highly inter-correlated a
single underlying component was extracted via PCA (variance
accounted for = 52%; Eigenvalue = 6.7; Cronbach's α = .92) and
the average score was computed for each participant (see
Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2006a,b for studies using similar
instruments and scoring procedure).
4) Academic Performance (AP) was operationalized in terms of
university grades, university entry examinations, and high school
grades. University grades were collected from the archive and
derived from 2nd and 3rd courses and represented a combination
of essay-type and multiple-choice exam (50 items with a Cronbach
α = .80). University entry and high school grades were collected
via self-reports. Although actual records of grades may be deemed
more accurate indicators of AP than students' reports, there is a
substantial correlation between both variables, ranging from .45 to
.98 (seeKuncel, Crede, & Thomas, 2005 for a recent meta-analysis
of over 60,000 participants), though in some cases self-reports can
hardly expected to be valid (Cassady, 2001). In the current study,
self-reports were provided in a “low-stake” setting, which reduces
2
This intelligence battery was also employed by Colom, Abad, Quiroga, Shih, and
Flores-Mendoza's (2008) study 3. Note that screening versions (even numbered items)
were used for the APM and the DAT subtests.
487
the risk of distortion, particularly by those students who obtained
lower grades or have lower cognitive ability levels.
2.2. Procedure
Participants were assessed in groups of 10 to 20. The intelligence
tests and personality measure were administered over two testing
sessions of 1 h each by experienced administrators. Cognitive ability
and personality tests were administered in supervised group sessions
at the beginning of the academic year (October), whereas AP data
were collected from the archive between February and June, i.e., four
and eight months later.
3. Results
Descriptive statistics and inter-correlations for target measures are
reported in Table 2.
IC model. Structural Equation Modeling through maximum-like-
lihood estimation was conducted with the AMOS 4.0 software (Arbuckle
& Wothke,1999). The first model tested was an exact replica of the target
paper's final model and did not fit the data well3: χ2(14) = 43.4,
p b 0.01; GFI = .96; PGFI = .37; CFI = .80; RMSEA = .09 (90% CI: .06; .12);
RMR= .05; AIC = 87.8; CN = 69. Based on the modification indexes, and
in line with the IC model, two additional paths, namely from Openness
to SAI and from sex to gc, were simultaneously added in order to
improve fit and obtain a well-fitting modified model (shown in Fig. 1):
χ2(12) = 25.1, p = .05; GFI = .98; PGFI = .34; CFI = .95; RMSEA= .05
(90% CI: .01; .09); RMR = .03; AIC= 69.4; CN= 69. As shown, two
variables (SAI and Conscientiousness) had significant effects on
university grades that are comparable to those reported in the target
paper, accounting for almost 8% of the variance. Five standardized Beta
coefficients (gf → SAI, gf → AP, gf → C, C → gc, and gc → AP) were
significant in the target paper but not in the current study, though for
the first and last paths Beta values were similar in both studies. Other
differences concerned the correlations among Big Five factors, not
significant in the case of O ←→C and significant but reversed in the case
of N ←→C. In line with the target paper, sex had opposite effects on N
(higher in females) and SAI (higher for males) and the highest Beta
value was found for the gf→gc path.
Next, a variation of the model in Fig. 1 was tested, including gv and
previous AP (high school and entry exam grades). In this model, we
specified a latent AP factor—the common variance between the three
different AP variables—and removed all non-significant paths (dotted
lines) from the model shown in Fig. 1. gv was allowed to correlate with
gf, and only Conscientiousness and SAI were hypothesized to affect the
latent AP factor (in line with effects shown inFig. 1). The hypothesized
model did not fit the data well [χ2(42) = 80.9, p b 0.01; GFI = .94;
PGFI = .60; CFI = .90; RMSEA = .06 (90% CI: .04; .08); RMR = .06;
AIC = 128.9; CN = 45], and, in line with the modification indices and
the IC theory, 5 parameters were simultaneously added, namely
effects from gv to C, from gc to latent AP, sex to gv, and both gf and SAI
3
In the present study the model fitness was assessed by the following indexes: the
Chi-square (Bollen, 1989; tests the hypothesis that an unconstrained model fits the
covariance/correlation matrix as well as the given model; ideally values should not be
significant); the GFI (Tanaka & Huba, 1985; goodness-of-fit indicator) is a measure of
fitness and values close to 1 are acceptable; the PGFI (Mulaik et .al., 1989; parsimony
goodness-of-fit indicator) is a measure of power and is optimal around .50); the CFI
(Bentler, 1990; comparison of the hypothesized model with a model in which all
correlations among variables are zero), values around .90 indicate very good fit; the
RMSEA (Browne & Cudeck, 1993; root-mean-square error of approximation), values of
.08 or below indicate reasonable fit for the model; the RMR (Hu & Bentler, 1995; root
mean square residuals) is the average difference between the predicted and observed
variances and covariances in the model, values closer to 0 indicates better fit; the AIC
(Akaike, 1973; Akaike's information criterion) gives the extension to which the
parameter estimates from the original sample will cross-validate in future samples; the
CN (Hoelter, 1983; Hoelter's critical N) provides the maximum sample size for which a
model with same sample size and df would be acceptable at .01 level.
488 T. Chamorro-Premuzic et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 19 (2009) 486–491

Fig. 1. Modified version of the modified model in Chamorro-Premuzic and Arteche (2008). Notes. Parameters in brackets show the values obtained in Chamorro-Premuzic and
Arteche (2008); dotted lines represent non-significant paths in the current sample; dashed lines represent paths added to the original model. Bi-directional paths are Pearson
correlation coefficients, all other paths are standardized Beta coefficients. Percentages are total variance accounted for (multiple squared correlation). See note to Table 2 for
abbreviations.

to university grades. The modified model (shown inFig. 2) fitted the sex, gf, gc, SAI, N, O, and C were tested as predictors of exam grades in
data well [χ2(42) = 80.9, p b 0.01; GFI = .97; PGFI = .54; CFI = .97; UK undergraduates—accurately explained comparable Spanish data.
RMSEA = .03(90% CI: .01–.06; RMR = .04; AIC = 105.7; CN = 45]. Only two additional paths, namely from Openness to SAI and from sex
Finally, Sobel's tests of mediation (Sobel, 1982; see Table 3) were to gc, were needed to identify a well-fitting model. The former path
performed wherever mediation conditions were met (Baron & Kenny, has been reported in several studies (see Chamorro-Premuzic &
1986)—in order to test whether the effects of x variable on z outcome Furnham, 2006a for a review) and reflects the conceptual and
could be explained/a function of a third variable, y, x must correlate methodological overlap between Openness and SAI. In regards to
significantly with both y and z, which must be significantly inter- the path from sex to gc, Colom, Quiroga, and Juan-Espinosa (1999)
correlated. In addition, mediations were only tested if they were reported average sex differences in Spain using the PMA and DAT
relevant to the IC theory. In line with the target paper, gc mediated the batteries standardized in 1979 and 1995, with males scoring higher in
effects of gf on AP (fully), whilst Neuroticism partly mediated the effects the DAT subscales Verbal Reasoning, Numerical Ability, Spatial
of sex on SAI. In addition, gc was found to partly mediate the effects of Relations and Mechanical Reasoning, as well as in the PMA subscales
sex on latent AP. As shown other triads did not meet the necessary Numerical Ability and Mental Rotation.4
conditions for mediation analyses. Over half of the hypothesized paths yielded different values (i.e.,
not significant or different in sign) in the current than in the target
4. Discussion study. Most importantly, neither the path from gf to SAI nor that from
Openness to AP (university grades) was significant. The former
The current study examined to what degree the final model reflects a zero-order correlation between gf and SAI, which was also
reported in Chamorro-Premuzic and Arteche (2008)—a study where more modestly correlated with the other cognitive ability measures
than in previous studies. Indeed, recent reviews (Ackerman &
Table 1
Factors of cognitive ability according to Carroll's (1993) hierarchical model of intelligence.
Wolman, 2007; Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2005; Chamorro-
Premuzic, Harlaar, & Plomin, submitted for publication) suggest that
Factor name Description Tests objective and subjective measures of cognitive ability correlate in the
g General factor of A fixed amount of ‘mental energy’ that Composite score of gf, gc, region of r = .30 to .50.
intelligence underlies all intellectual activity albeit and gv scales
There are two noteworthy facts with regard to the non-significant
to different extents
gf Fluid Problem solving, abstract reasoning, Raven's matrices association between Openness and AP. First, the effect of Openness on
intelligence ability to learn new things; irrespective Abstract reasoning (DAT) AP reported in the target paper was modest (.14). Second, meta-analytic
of previous knowledge or education Reasoning (PMA) evidence indicates that, far from being a consistent predictor of AP,
gc Crystallised Knowledge, information, inductive Verbal reasoning (DAT)
intelligence reasoning based on prior learning Numerical reason (DAT)
experiences Vocabulary (PMA) 4
Given the uneven gender distribution of the current sample, we were unable to
gv Visual–spatial Ability to mentally rotate objects, Solid figures
test for invariance of structure (perform multi-group analyses for males and females).
intelligence orientation in space, visual perception Mental rotation (PMA)
It is however noteworthy that the inclusion of gender in the model makes the as-
of space Spatial Relation (DAT)
sumption of equal factor loadings, error variance, etc., across groups. Given that the
Note. PMA refers to Thurstone's (1938) Primary Mental Ability battery; DAT refers to pathway from sex to gc were not replicated in this study, there may be further sex
Bennet et al.'s (1990) Differential Ability Test battery. differences in the model, which remain unaccounted for by the current analyses.
 T. Chamorro-Premuzic et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 19 (2009) 486–491 489

Table 2
Descriptive statistics and inter-correlations for target measures.

M (SD) Bach Entry SAI gf gc gv Sex N E O C A

Uni 5.4(1.6) .29⁎⁎ .22⁎⁎ .16⁎ .17⁎⁎ .16⁎ .10 − .09 − .02 .01 − .05 .15⁎ .06
Bach 7.4(.9) .59⁎⁎ − .03 − .01 .07 − .03 − .12 .10 − .06 − .04 .25⁎⁎ − .04
Entry 6.7(.9) − .08 .09 .15⁎ − .00 − .17⁎ .12 − .10 − .02 .21⁎⁎ .01
SAI 99.1(6.8) .04 .15⁎ .14⁎ .19⁎⁎ − .17⁎⁎ − .01 .22⁎⁎ .04 − .03
gf z-scores .51⁎⁎ .59⁎⁎ − .04 − .10 − .06 − .09 .00 .02
gc z-scores .37⁎⁎ .14⁎ − .05 − .09 .05 − .04 − .14⁎
gv z-scores .11 − .12 − .08 .01 − .12 − .09
Sex 47♂;201♀ − .19⁎⁎ − .16⁎ − .01 − .14⁎ − .24⁎⁎
N 23.5(8.3) − .24⁎⁎ .05 − .18⁎⁎ − .16⁎
E 31.6(7.3) .16⁎ .14⁎ .22⁎⁎
O 31.6(6.5) − .07 .01
C 30.0(8.1) .13⁎
A 29.7(5.4)

Note. N = 248 (but N = 150 for SAI); ⁎p b .05, ⁎⁎p b .01; sex coded 0 = females, 1 = males; N = Neuroticism, E = Extraversion, O = Openness, A = Agreeableness,
C = Conscientiousness; SAI = self-assessed; Uni = university exam grades; Entry = entry exam grades; Bach = high school grades, gf = fluid intelligence; gc = crystallized
intelligence; gv = visual intelligence.

Openness is “sometimes associated with scholastic achievement”
(O'Connor & Paunonen, 2007, p. 971; emphasis added). The relationship
between Openness and AP can be expected to vary according to how
both Openness and AP are operationalized. For example, Openness as
assessed by the NEO-FFI is arguably more indicative of individual
differences in creativity and aesthetic preferences than its IPIP
equivalent construct (Intellect, more related to intellectual curiosity
and need for cognition) (McCrae, 1994). On the other hand when AP is
operationalized in terms of verbal SAT, any version of Openness is
significantly correlated to it (Noftle & Robins, 2007).
Another salient difference between the target and current papers'
reported values is the path from Conscientiousness to gc. One possibility
is that this discrepancy was caused by the different measures of
personality used in both studies: The target paper operationalized C
as the latent trait underlying the “order”, “achievement”, and “self-
discipline” primary facets of the long NEO-PI-R, which arguably
represents a more motivational version of C. The remaining two
discrepancies relate to the effects of gf on C and gc on AP, which can
be attributed to differences in sample size (coefficients are actually
similar in size but were significant only in the larger sample of the target
paper). Thus coefficients were very similar in both studies but the p
levels differed (other inconsistent paths were peripheral to the IC theory
and are not discussed here for space constraints).
As in the target article, Sobel's tests showed that gc accounted for
the effects of gf on AP (partially in the original paper, and fully in the
current study), and that N partly explained the effects of sex on SAI,
specifically the fact that males provided higher self-estimates of
intelligence than did females. Also in line with the target article,
Conscientiousness and SAI had significant effects on AP, explaining
almost 8% of the variance in university exams (in the target paper the
total variance explained was 13% but two additional predictors,
namely Openness and gf, accounted for the remaining 5%).
In the expanded IC model, previous AP (high school and entry
exams) was more strongly represented than university exam by the
latent AP factor, arguably because of how these variables were assessed.
The latent AP factor was affected primarily by C, though gc, which, as
discussed, had non-significant effects on university exams in Fig. 1,
accounted for an additional 3% of the variance. Moreover, mediation
tests indicated that gc partly explained the effects of sex on AP. Thus
males had lower overall levels of AP than did females, but if both sexes

Fig. 2. Modified model with latent AP factor and gv. Notes. Dotted lines represent non-significant paths in the current sample; dashed lines represent paths added to the hypothesised
model. Bi-directional paths are Pearson correlation coefficients, all other paths are standardized Beta coefficients. Percentages are total variance accounted for (multiple squared
correlation). See note to Table 2 for abbreviations.
490 T. Chamorro-Premuzic et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 19 (2009) 486–491

Table 3 References
Mediation tests.
Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, personality, and interests:
IV Mediator DV β IV to β IV to β Mediator β IV to Sobel Mediation
Evidence for overlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 219–245.
DV direct Mediator to DV DV indirect test Z Ackerman, P. L., & Wolman, S. D. (2007). Determinants and validity of self-estimates of
C gc Uni .15⁎ − .04 .16⁎ .16⁎ – n/a abilities and self-concept measures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 13,
N SAI Uni − .02 − .17⁎ .16⁎ − .01 – n/a 57–78.
gf gc Uni .17⁎⁎ .51⁎⁎ .16⁎ .11 2.64⁎⁎ Full Akaike, H. (1973). Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood
gf C Uni .17⁎⁎ .00 .15⁎ .17⁎⁎ – n/a principle. In B. N. Petrov & F. Csaki (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd International
gf SAI Uni .17⁎⁎ .04 .16⁎ .15⁎ – n/a Symposium on Information Theory (pp. 267–281). Budapest: Akademiai Kiado.
Sex N SAI .19⁎⁎ − .19⁎⁎ − .17⁎⁎ .16⁎ 2.03⁎ Partial Arbuckle, J., & Wothke, W. (1999). AMOS 4 user's reference guide. Chicago: Smallwaters
Corporation.
Sex gf SAI .19⁎⁎ − .04 .04 .19⁎⁎ – n/a
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in
Sex gc AP(L) − .16⁎ .16⁎ .16⁎ − .19⁎⁎ 1.80⁎ Partial
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations.
Sex gv C − .14⁎ .12⁎ 12⁎ − .13⁎ − 1.36 none Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Note. ⁎p b 0.05. ⁎⁎p b 0.01. sex coded 0 = females, 1 = males; C = Conscientiousness; Bennet, G., Seashore, H., & Wesman, A. (1990). DAT. Tests de aptitudes diferenciales.
N=Neuroticism; SAI=self-assessed; Uni=university exam grades; intelligence; gf =fluid Manual Madrid: TEA.
intelligence; gc=crystallized intelligence; gv=visual intelligence; AP(L)=latent. Values in Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological
Bulletin, 107, 238–246.
bold precluded from mediation test.
Binet, A., (1905). New methods for the diagnosis of the intellectual level of subnormals.
L'Annee Psychologique, 12, 191–244 (Translated in 1916 by E.S. Kite in the
Development of intelligence in children. Vineland, NJ: Publications of the training
school at Vineland).
were matched on gc (as opposed to males having slightly higher levels Bogg, T., & Roberts, B. W. (2004). Conscientiousness and health behaviors: A meta
analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 887–919.
of gc), the difference in favour of females would have been even larger. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
After accounting for the overall, latent AP factor, university exams Brody, N. (1997). Intelligence, schooling, and society. American Psychologist, 52, 1046–1050.
were positively affected by SAI and gf, indicating that exam-related Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A.
Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury
individual differences unique to university exams are partly explained by Park, CA: Sage.
differences in SAI and gf. About 12% of the variance in university exams Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytical studies. New
was explained by the overall AP factor, but an additional 5% was York: Cambridge University Press.
Cassady, J. C. (2001). Self-reported GPA and SAT: A methodological notePractical
explained by SAI and gf. Thus for the current sample the generic aspects
Assessment, Research, & Evaluation, vol. 7(12). Retrieved March 5, 2003, from
of AP were a function of individual differences in C and gc, whereas the http://:ericae.net/pare/getvn.asp?v=7&n=12
specific aspects of university grades (not explained by the overall AP Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Arteche, A. (2008). Intellectual competence and academic
performance: Preliminary validation of a model. Intelligence, 564–573.
factor) were a function of individual differences in SAI and gf.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2003). Personality predicts academic
There were limitations to the present study: our sample was performance: Evidence from two longitudinal studies on British University
predominantly female, and AP was assessed via student's self-reports. students. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 319–338.
Although the latter would have made the current study more robust, if Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2003). Personality traits and academic exam
performance. European Journal of Personality, 17, 237–250.
only from a methodological standpoint, there is sufficient evidence for Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2004). A possible model to understand the
the validity of self-reports as proxy of AP (Kuncel et al., 2005), personality-intelligence interface. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 249–264.
particularly if provided in low-stake contexts. Moreover, one of the Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2005). Personality and intellectual competence.
Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
reasons for modelling a latent AP factor (in Fig. 2) was to avoid relying Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2006). Intellectual competence and the
solely on subjective measures of AP, and the different predictors found intelligent personality: A third way in differential psychology. Review of General
for latent AP and university grades after controlling for general AP are Psychology, 10, 251–267.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2006). Self-assessed intelligence and academic
unlikely an artefact of how each AP variable was measured: for performance. Educational Psychology, 26, 769–779.
example, SAI (a self-report) related to actual grades more than Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A., (2009). The psychology of personnel selection.
subjective reports, whereas gc (an actual test) was more related to AP New York: Cambridge University Press.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Harlaar, N., & Plomin, R., (submitted for publication). More than
when subjective ratings were included ( Fig. 2) than when only
just IQ: Longitudinal validity of self-perceived ability in the prediction of academic
objective grades were examined ( Fig. 1). Last, but not least, although performance. Intelligence. http://cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?
the two depicted models fitted the data well, individual path values isbn=9780521868297.
Colom, R., Abad, F., Quiroga, M. A., Shih, P. C., & Flores-Mendoza, C. (2008). Working
were generally modest, which begs the question of what other
memory and intelligence are highly related constructs, but why?Intelligence, 36,
predictors, omitted from this study, would have explained additional 584–606. http://cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521868297.
variance in university grades. Colom, R., Escorial, S., Shih, P. C., & Privado, J. (2007). Fluid intelligence, memory span,
In all, the current results provide only partial support to Chamorro- and temperament difficulties predict academic performance of young adolescents.
Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 1503–1514.
Premuzic and Furnham's (2004, 2006a,b) IC model. That said, there Colom, R., & Flores-Mendoza, C. (2007). Intelligence predicts scholastic achievement
were fewer discrepancies when it came to contrasting the model as a irrespective of SES factors: Evidence from Brazil. Intelligence, 35, 243–251.
whole, and the expanded model tested in the current study provided Colom, R., Quiroga, Ma A., & Juan-Espinosa, M. (1999). Are cognitive sex differences
disappearing? Evidence from Spanish populations. Personality and Individual
additional empirical support for the IC model and the first attempt to Differences, 27, 1189–1196.
integrating the main dispositional and ability determinants of AP in a Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO personality inventory, revised. Psycholo-
Spanish-speaking sample. In light of the wide range of differences gical Assessment Resources, Odessa, Florida, 1992 (Spanish version, TEA Ediciones,
Madrid, 2002).
between the formal educational systems of Spain and the UK (Prats and Deary, I. J., Strand, S., Smith, P., & Fernandez, C. (2007). Intelligence and educational
Raventós, 2005) and the inherent psychological differences with which achievement. Intelligence, 35, 13–21.
students approach and experience this educational process in both Deary, I., Whiteman, M. C., Starr, J. M., Whaley, L. J., & Fox, H. C. (2004). The impact of
childhood intelligence on late life: following up the Scottish mental surveys of 1832
countries, the similarities between the current and the UK results cannot
and 1947. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 130–147.
be understated and have encouraging implications for the cross-cultural Der, G., Batty, G. D., & Deary, I. J., submitted for publication. The association between IQ
validation of the IC model. An interesting question that future studies in adolescence and a range of health outcomes at 40 in the 1979 US National
Longitudinal Study of Youth. Intelligence. http://cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/
may wish to address is how sociological variables (e.g. parental socio-
catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521868297.
economic status) and prior achievement could be integrated in the IC Gottfredson, L. S. (2004). Schools and the g factor.The Wilson Quarterly, 35–45 (Summer).
model. Indeed, it would be particularly important, with regard to the Hoelter, J. W. (1983). The analysis of covariance structures: Goodness-of-fit indices.
implications of the IC theory, to assess how this model explains AP at the Sociological Methods and Research, 11, 325–344.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural
lowest levels of educational attainment or socio-economic status, and in equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 76–99). Thousand Oaks,
more heterogeneous samples. CA: Sage.
 T. Chamorro-Premuzic et al. / Learning and Individual Differences 19 (2009) 486–491
Jensen, A. J. (1980). Bias in mental testing. London: Methuen.
Kuncel, N. R., Crede, M., & Thomas, L. L. (2005). The validity of self reported grade point
averages, class ranks, and test scores: A meta-analysis and review of the literature.
Review of Educational Research, 75, 63–82.
McCrae, R. R. (1994). Openness to experience: expanding the boundaries of Factor V.
European Journal of Personality, 8, 251–272.
Mulaik, S. A., James, L. R., Van Alstine, J., Bennett, N., Lind, S., & Stilwell, C. D. (1989).
Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. Psychological
Bulletin, 105, 430–445.
Noftle, E. E., & Robins, R. W. (2007). Personality predictors of academic outcomes: Big
five correlates of GPA and SAT scores. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93,
116–130.
O'Connor, M., & Paunonen, S. (2007). Big Five personality predictors of post-secondary
academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 971–990.
Petrill, S. A., & Wilkerson, B. (2000). Intelligence and achievement: A behavioral genetic
perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 12, 185–199.
Prats, J. & Raventós, F., (2005) (Dir.). Los sistemas educativos europeos. Crisis o
transformación? Obra social La Caixa. Colección Estudios Sociales No. 18. Fundación
La Caixa.
Rinderman, H., & Neubauer, A. C. (2004). Processing speed, intelligence, creativity, and
school performance: Testing of causal hypotheses using structural equation models.
Intelligence, 32, 573–589.
491
Roth, P. L., Be Vier, C. A., Switzer, F. S., & Schippman, J. S. (1996). Meta-analyzing the
relationship between grades and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81,
548–556.
Roth, P. L., & Clarke, R. L. (1998). Meta-analyzing the relationship between grades and
salary. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 53, 386–400.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural equations
models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 290–312). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Spearman, C. (1904). General intelligence objectively determined and measured.
American Journal of Psychology, 15, 201–293.
Tanaka, J. S., & Huba, G. J. (1985). A fit index for covariance structure models under
arbitrary GLS estimation. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology,
38, 197–201.
Thorndike, R. L. (1985). The central role of general ability in prediction. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 20, 241–254.
Thurstone, L. L. (1938). Primary mental abilities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Yela, M. (1969). Solid figures rotation. Madrid: TEA.