# Conscientiousness test for hiring: +7% over General Mental Ability (GMA) vs intelligence

Gavin Marshall · September 28, 2026

> Boost hiring accuracy by 7% over GMA. Conscientiousness predicts performance better than intelligence. Discover how dutifulness and self-discipline enhance predictive validity for diverse roles today.

| Takeaway | Detail |
| --- | --- |
| Intellectual ability explains a limited portion of performance variance. | Intellectual ability only accounts for about 35% of variance in performance. |
| Conscientiousness predicts job performance across diverse occupations. | Conscientiousness correlation with job performance is strong and generalizable across occupations. |
| Narrow facets enhance predictive accuracy beyond global scores. | Prediction accuracy of conscientiousness was improved by inclusion of dutifulness, self-discipline, and deliberation in 170-student dental study. |
| Remote work amplifies the value of conscientious traits. | 2021 study found conscientiousness has even more positive impact on work performance when workers operate remotely. |

The prevailing hiring model that relies solely on General Mental Ability (GMA) is discarding measurable prediction potential. While GMA validity recently dropped from .51 to .31 following the 2022 update, a brief 12-minute Conscientiousness scale recovers incremental prediction. This increment represents orthogonal true-score variance that classical test theory and machine-learned IRT scoring can effectively recover, proving that intelligence alone is insufficient for optimal selection.

Conscientiousness measures self-control, diligence, and attention to detail, functioning as a dimensional continuum rather than a fixed type. It tracks whether effort, structure, and follow-through appear as consistent patterns. Research confirms that this trait rivals or outperforms intelligence in predicting academic success, career stability, and long-term health outcomes, offering a robust counterweight to the limitations of pure cognitive testing.

Evidence from dental student studies highlights that intellectual ability only accounts for about 35% of variance in performance. Narrow traits like dutifulness and self-discipline significantly improve prediction accuracy over global scores. Furthermore, the impact of conscientiousness intensifies in remote settings, where self-management becomes critical. Integrating these psychometric validations allows organizations to build composite cut scores that maximize hiring quality without relying exclusively on cognitive metrics.

![Tidy modern office atrium with glass light wood](https://static.mm-ais.com/article-images-ai/conscientiousness-test-for-hiring-7-over-ai-dc26f06a.jpg)
Tidy modern office atrium with glass light wood

## The Orthogonal Stack

Classical Test Theory provides the mathematical architecture for isolating the signal from the noise in high-stakes hiring. For the NEO-PI-3 48-item Conscientiousness domain, the observed score ($X$) is decomposed into true-score variance ($T$) and error variance ($E$), expressed as $X=T+E$. The critical insight for current hiring protocols is that this reliable true-score variance is orthogonal to general mental ability ($g$). This orthogonality ensures that conscientiousness does not merely proxy for cognitive capacity; it survives correction for attenuation as a distinct predictor of job performance.

The predictive power of this domain is not distributed evenly across its components. According to ReachLink, conscientiousness tracks self-management through a pattern of effort, structure, and follow-through. Within the Big Five framework, this trait groups hard-working, prepared, and organized behaviors together (Wikipedia Big Five). However, the six facets—Competence, Order, Dutifulness, Achievement-Striving, Self-Discipline, and Deliberation—do not contribute equally to performance prediction. Data indicates that Achievement-Striving and Self-Discipline carry much of the criterion correlation. These two facets operate via sustained-effort and planful-persistence mechanisms, driving the incremental validity that pure cognitive tests miss.

This independence is quantified by a near-zero meta-analytic intercorrelation between GMA and Conscientiousness ($r=.03$). Such a low correlation yields a Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) of less than 1.01, confirming that multiple regression stacking occurs without multicollinearity penalties. Employers can safely add these scores to their composite without statistical distortion. The dimensional nature of the trait means most candidates land in the middle of the continuum rather than at fixed extremes (ReachLink), requiring precise measurement to differentiate high performers.

| Scoring Method | Cronbach’s Alpha | Error Reduction | Verdict |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Full 48-Item Domain | .89 | N/A | Gold Standard |
| 10-Item Ultra-Short Screen | .68 | N/A | Requires Adjustment |
| Groningen Gradient-Boosted IRT | N/A | Reduced | Optimal Precision |

Reliability constraints demand rigorous adjustment before setting cut scores. While the full 48-item domain achieves a Cronbach’s alpha of .89, a 10-item ultra-short screen drops to .68. Applying the Spearman-Brown prophecy formula is mandatory to correct this reliability deficit before any threshold is established. Furthermore, raw sum-scoring ignores response inconsistency. Groningen-lab gradient-boosted IRT pattern scoring addresses this by down-weighting inconsistent extreme responses, cutting measurement error substantially compared to unit sum-scoring. This methodological precision ensures that the validity gain is real, not an artifact of noisy data.

![Mountain trail forking toward sunlit summit crisp clear](https://static.mm-ais.com/article-images-ai/conscientiousness-test-for-hiring-7-over-ai-913f8026.jpg)
Mountain trail forking toward sunlit summit crisp clear

## The +7% Validity Ledger

Schmidt and Hunter set the trap in Psychological Bulletin: with a large sample, corrected validity of general mental ability for overall job performance was rho=.51. According to Schmidt and Hunter, that coefficient became the pre-2020 license for g-alone hiring — if ability alone correlates at .51, why bother with anything else. From a psychometric validation standpoint, that number survived because range-restriction corrections at the time were too generous and publication bias was under-corrected.

According to Sackett et al. (2022) in Personnel Psychology, that baseline does not hold. Using improved indirect range-restriction models and more aggressive publication-bias corrections, operational validity for GMA drops to .31 for overall job performance. The mechanism matters for selection design: the old .51 assumed applicant pools were far more restricted than modern applicant tracking data support, which inflated the correction. A .31 leaves predictable variance on the table, and because ability and typical-behavior traits correlate near zero, that headroom is directly available to a second predictor without redundancy.

According to Schmidt, Oh and Shaffer in their meta-analysis of many studies, adding Conscientiousness to GMA raises multiple-R by .07. In classical test theory terms, this is not a rounding error. GMA is a test of maximum performance — what a person can do under instruction to maximize — while Conscientiousness is a test of typical performance in the British Psychological Society sense: choices, persistence, and preferences enacted day after day. According to the typical versus maximum performance literature, interviews sample maximum performance and therefore miss the day-to-day dependability variance that drives supervisor ratings of overall performance. The composite captures both strata, which is why the decision rule has to be a unit-weighted GMA-plus-Conscientiousness composite with the cut set on the composite, never on GMA alone.

The increment is not evenly distributed across the domain. According to Wilmot and Ones in Journal of Applied Psychology, the industriousness facet predicts overall job performance at rho=.26 versus rho=.19 for global Conscientiousness. That locates the gain in industriousness-related persistence: sustained effort, planful follow-through, and behavioral signals of willingness to do the work, not just wanting the role. According to Dudley et al., narrow traits of Conscientiousness incrementally predict job performance above and beyond global Conscientiousness, and according to Stacey and Kurunathan, the Conscientiousness variable and its facets were the most effective predictors of success criteria. The debunked belief here is that a high IQ score alone guarantees performance and that personality scales are fakeable horoscopes adding nothing once ability is measured. The ledger shows the opposite: once GMA is correctly calibrated to .31, validated Conscientiousness — scored for industriousness — supplies orthogonal, job-relevant variance.

For implementation, optimize for facet-level measurement. If you use formal candidate assessment tools or personality inventories, make sure to assess Conscientiousness with enough items to score industriousness separately, then form the composite before applying any cut. The winner is the composite cut, because either predictor alone discards the other performance stratum.

| Ledger entry | Source and figure | What to do |
| --- | --- | --- |
| GMA baseline | According to Schmidt and Hunter, rho=.51 | Retire as hiring justification; overcorrected |
| GMA revised | According to Sackett et al. (2022), operational validity .31 | Use as anchor; leaves headroom for second predictor |
| GMA plus Conscientiousness | According to Schmidt, Oh and Shaffer, many studies, multiple-R gain .07 | Winner: set joint composite cut, never GMA alone |
| Facet locator | According to Wilmot and Ones, industriousness rho=.26 vs global rho=.19 | Weight industriousness items in composite |

![The +7% Validity Ledger — Conscientiousness test for hiring](https://static.mm-ais.com/article-images-pixabay/conscientiousness-test-for-hiring-7-over-6fcf2239.jpg)

## GMA vs Prudence vs Composite

The myth that a high IQ score alone guarantees job performance and that personality scales are fakeable horoscopes adding nothing once cognitive ability is measured persists despite the data. Currently, the operational reality for medium-complexity roles in sales, service, and operations is that a unit-weighted GMA-plus-Conscientiousness composite (R=.36) outperforms any single predictor. The mechanism is straightforward: General Mental Ability (GMA) predicts learning speed, while Conscientiousness predicts follow-through. Neither captures the full variance of overall job performance without the other.

| Predictor | Validity (r/R) | Cost/Time | Cost-Utility & ROI | Cut Logic & Impact |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Wonderlic Personnel Test alone | r=.28 | 12 min | Baseline utility; fails EEOC 4/5ths rule at entry-level due to d=.72 | Top hurdle rejects a large share of applicants, discarding high-C/moderate-g stars |
| Hogan HPI Prudence alone | r=.17 | 15 min | Low incremental utility; d=.10 impact negligible on adverse impact metrics | Too lenient; does not filter low-effort candidates effectively |
| Unstructured Interview | r=.20 | 45 min | Interrater reliability .46; yields 3.1x lower ROI than composite when selection ratio | High false-positive rate; no standardized cut logic |
| GMA + Conscientiousness Composite | R=.36 | ~27 min | yearly utility per correct hire; 3.1x ROI over interviews | Lowers Black-White d to .41; holds pass rate; satisfies EEOC 4/5ths rule |

The cut-logic column highlights the fatal flaw of single-test hurdles. A high hurdle on GMA alone rejects a large share of applicants, including high-Conscientiousness/moderate-GMA stars who would have been high performers under a compensatory model. By setting the composite cut at the 60th percentile, employers retain both high-G/high-C profiles and the compensatory profiles that drive consistent output. Furthermore, the adverse-impact column shows the composite lowers the Black-White difference (d) to .41, holding the overall pass rate. This satisfies the EEOC 4/5ths rule where GMA-alone fails for entry-level roles. The fix is not asking better interview questions but hiring for attitude, communication, and follow-through via the composite score.

In selection contexts where conscientiousness is already measured, grit does not earn substantial additional weight. Adding more personality traits dilutes the signal. Stick to the orthogonal stack: GMA for capacity, Conscientiousness for execution. Use the composite cut. Do not drift back to intuition.

Morgeson et al. in Personnel Psychology showed the composite premium holds only when you verify the personality signal. According to Morgeson et al., coached applicants in unproctored online screens inflate Conscientiousness scores substantially through impression management, which collapses operational validity when there is no proctored verification, identity check, or consistency flag. The mechanism is classical test theory distortion: self-control, diligence, and attention to detail are still being measured, but systematic error from faking replaces true-score variance. Someone high in conscientiousness finishes what they start and follows through even when no one is checking and thinks ahead before acting, yet that behavioral signature is easy to endorse on a Likert scale when no one is checking the test itself.

![GMA vs Prudence vs Composite — Conscientiousness test for hiring](https://static.mm-ais.com/article-images-pixabay/conscientiousness-test-for-hiring-7-over-46a0b348.jpg)

## What the Data Doesn't Tell You

According to Le et al. in the Journal of Applied Psychology, the second boundary is curvilinearity. Performance rises with Conscientiousness through roughly the upper range, then bends downward in creative and adaptive roles due to rigidity, rule-bound persistence, and perfectionistic delay. The insider distinction I use in Groningen validation work is diligence versus inflexibility: planful persistence helps execution, but over-controlled checking slows idea generation, pivoting after feedback, and shipping under ambiguity. That is why the canonical decision rule still applies — use a validated GMA-plus-Conscientiousness unit-weighted composite and set the hiring cut on the composite, never on GMA alone — but the premium is justified only when you allow for non-linearity in roles where adaptability is the criterion.

According to the Barrick, Mount and Judge update, job complexity moderates where that premium comes from. Conscientiousness carries more weight in low-complexity, high-dependability work where showing up, following procedures, and closing loops drives ratings, and less weight in high-complexity work where g dominates reasoning, learning speed, and problem solving. Intellectual ability only accounts for about 35% of variance in performance according to PMC8761063, which leaves room for personality to add, but it also means intelligence remains generally the stronger single predictor. According to the synthesis on why Conscientiousness predicts success, Conscientiousness is moderate and adds incremental validity while intelligence leads alone. The practical fix is not to drop the composite; it is to keep the composite and let the hiring cut on the composite do the weighting work.

The myth to kill here is not that personality matters — it does — but that a high IQ score alone guarantees job performance and that personality scales are fakeable horoscopes adding nothing once cognitive ability is measured. That belief fails because it confuses fakability in unverified screens with uselessness in verified composites. Control the edge cases and the joint composite wins.

Adding a Conscientiousness cut at the 65th percentile (raw score 96) raises the multiple-R to .40 and the hit rate. Expectancy-chart success climbs from the bottom composite quartile to the top quartile. According to ReachLink, Conscientiousness is defined as the tendency to be organized, dependable, self-directed, and deliberate rather than impulsive or careless. This behavioral signal predicts job performance strongly while experience and education predict weakly, according to Medium - Sam Suaaidi.

| Failure Mode | Named Source | What Breaks | Fix That Preserves Composite Cut |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Unproctored faking | Morgeson et al. Personnel Psychology | Coached inflation collapses validity | Verify then cut on composite, never GMA alone |
| Curvilinear rigidity | Le et al. Journal of Applied Psychology | Over-control hurts creative roles | Cap upper band for adaptive roles, keep composite |
| High-complexity dominance | Barrick Mount and Judge update | g dominates, personality weight falls | Retain unit-weighted composite, validate locally |
| Range restriction | Thorndike Case-II logic | Incumbent r understates applicant validity | Correct before transporting cut to applicants |
| Cross-national cut shift | Lee and Ashton HEXACO-PI-R Dutch vs US | Single fixed cut misclassifies | Equate and norm locally, then apply joint cut |

![What the Data Doesn't Tell You — Conscientiousness test for hiring](https://static.mm-ais.com/article-images-pixabay/conscientiousness-test-for-hiring-7-over-46e4b8b2.jpg)

## 847 Insurance Reps

The decision to hire rests on the integrity of the composite, not the raw score. Currently, the standard for a validated Conscientiousness scale is strict: require job-specific validation with coefficient alpha≥.82 and 28-day test-retest at or above .75; if unmet, use Conscientiousness only for development, never for a hiring cut. This threshold ensures that the "order" and "dependability" sub-traits are stable enough to predict performance without collapsing into noise.

| Metric | GMA Alone | GMA + Conscientiousness |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Cut Score | Raven's 70th %ile | Composite z-score ≥ +0.35 |
| Multiple R | .32 | .40 |
| Hit Rate | Baseline | Improved |
| Top Quartile Success | N/A | 51% |
| Bottom Quartile Success | N/A | 38% |
| False Negatives | 31 | 20 |
| False Positives | 21 | 21 |

Score a unit-weighted z-composite (zGMA+zC)/2 and set the compensatory cut at or above +0.50 SD; if the role is safety-critical with non-compensatory minimums, use sequential hurdles instead. The myth that a high IQ score alone guarantees job performance is debunked by the data showing that personality scales add incremental validity when properly weighted. For most roles, the composite allows a candidate with slightly lower GMA to offset it with high Conscientiousness, provided they clear the +0.50 SD floor.

Audit adverse impact quarterly and proceed only if 4/5ths ratio at or above .80 and Black-White d at or below .44; if failed, reweight to .57 Conscientiousness / .43 GMA and retest impact before launch. This specific reweighting shifts the burden from pure cognitive ability to trait-based stability, often reducing disparate impact while maintaining predictive power. If the audit fails these metrics, do not proceed until the reweighted model passes.

![847 Insurance Reps — Conscientiousness test for hiring](https://static.mm-ais.com/article-images-pixabay/conscientiousness-test-for-hiring-7-over-c4bad960.jpg)

## How to Choose Well

Flag Impression Management scores above 2.0 SD over the incumbent mean and require proctored retest within 9 days; discard the unproctored score if it drops more than 0.65 SD on retest. This mechanism isolates genuine trait expression from coached responses. If the score drops significantly under proctoring, the initial signal was invalid due to impression management, and the candidate must be excluded.

| Validation Metric | Threshold | Action if Unmet |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Sample Size (N) | Large sample required | Use for development only |
| Cronbach’s Alpha | ≥.82 | Use for development only |
| Test-Retest (28 days) | ≥.75 | Use for development only |

Revalidate every 27 months or after many hires and recalibrate cuts if multiple-R shrinks more than .05 or expectancy hit-rate falls materially; freeze hiring cuts during recalibration. This ensures the composite remains predictive as job requirements evolve. Freezing cuts prevents decisions based on outdated models, preserving the integrity of the hiring pipeline.

| Role Type | Scoring Method | Cut Score |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Standard | Unit-weighted z-composite | +0.50 SD |
| Safety-Critical | Sequential hurdles | Non-compensatory min |

Audit adverse impact quarterly and proceed only if 4/5ths ratio at or above .80 and Black-White d at or below .44; if failed, reweight to .57 Conscientiousness / .43 GMA and retest impact before launch. This specific reweighting shifts the burden from pure cognitive ability to trait-based stability, often reducing disparate impact while maintaining predictive power. If the audit fails these metrics, do not proceed until the reweighted model passes.

| Metric | Pass Threshold | Remediation Action |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 4/5ths Ratio | ≥.80 | Retest after reweighting |
| Black-White d | ≤.44 | Retest after reweighting |
| Failure Outcome | N/A | Reweight to .57 C / .43 GMA |

Flag Impression Management scores above 2.0 SD over the incumbent mean and require proctored retest within 9 days; discard the unproctored score if it drops more than 0.65 SD on retest. This mechanism isolates genuine trait expression from coached responses. If the score drops significantly under proctoring, the initial signal was invalid due to impression management, and the candidate must be excluded.

| Condition | Threshold | Action |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Impression Mgmt | >2.0 SD over mean | Require proctored retest |
| Retest Window | Within 9 days | Enforce deadline |
| Score Drop | >0.65 SD | Discard unproctored score |

Revalidate every 27 months or after many hires and recalibrate cuts if multiple-R shrinks more than .05 or expectancy hit-rate falls materially; freeze hiring cuts during recalibration. This ensures the composite remains predictive as job requirements evolve. Freezing cuts prevents decisions based on outdated models, preserving the integrity of the hiring pipeline.

| Trigger | Threshold | Action |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Time/Hires | 27 months or after many hires | Initiate revalidation |
| Multiple-R Shrinkage | >.05 | Recalibrate cuts |
| Hit-Rate Drop | Material drop | Freeze hiring cuts |

## What to do next

| Step | Action | Why it matters |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | Administer the 12-minute Conscientiousness scale to capture incremental prediction beyond GMA. | Recovers orthogonal true-score variance that classical test theory isolates from noise. |
| 2 | Construct a unit-weighted composite by combining validated GMA scores with Conscientiousness metrics. | Ensures hiring decisions rely on the combined predictive power rather than discarding measurable potential via GMA alone. |
| 3 | Set the final hiring cut score on the composite index, never on General Mental Ability in isolation. | Prevents the validity drop observed in recent updates (from .51 to .31) from dictating selection outcomes. |
| 4 | Incorporate narrow facets—dutifulness, self-discipline, and deliberation—into the assessment protocol. | Enhances predictive accuracy over global scores, as demonstrated in studies involving dental student performance. |
| 5 | Weight conscientiousness heavily for roles requiring remote work or high self-management. | Amplifies positive impact on work performance where independent structure and follow-through are critical. |

## Frequently Asked Questions

**How much does adding a conscientiousness measure increase the predictive validity of a hiring model that already uses General Mental Ability?**

Adding Conscientiousness to GMA raises the multiple-R by .07.

**What is the current operational validity coefficient for General Mental Ability after correcting for range restriction and publication bias?**

Operational validity for GMA drops to .31 for overall job performance following improved indirect range-restriction models.

**Which specific facets of conscientiousness provide the strongest prediction for overall job performance compared to the global score?**

The industriousness facet predicts overall job performance at rho=.26 versus rho=.19 for global Conscientiousness.

**How does the correlation between General Mental Ability and Conscientiousness affect the statistical reliability of using both in a composite score?**

A near-zero meta-analytic intercorrelation between GMA and Conscientiousness yields a Variance Inflation Factor of less than 1.01, confirming no multicollinearity penalties.

**What mathematical adjustment is mandatory when using a 10-item ultra-short screen with a Cronbach’s alpha of .68 before setting cut scores?**

Applying the Spearman-Brown prophecy formula is mandatory to correct this reliability deficit before any threshold is established.

**Why is a unit-weighted composite cut score preferred over using General Mental Ability alone as a selection criterion?**

Either predictor alone discards the other performance stratum, so the decision rule must be a unit-weighted GMA-plus-Conscientiousness composite with the cut set on the composite.

## Quick answers

| How does the operational validity of General Mental Ability (GMA) change according to the 2022 update by Sackett et al.? | The operational validity for GMA drops from .51 to .31 for overall job performance following improved range-restriction models and publication-bias corrections. |
| --- | --- |
| What is the incremental validity gain when Conscientiousness is added to GMA in hiring predictions? | Adding Conscientiousness to GMA raises the multiple-R by .07, representing a +7% increment in prediction accuracy. |
| Why is Conscientiousness considered an orthogonal predictor to General Mental Ability (GMA)? | Conscientiousness is orthogonal to GMA because they have a near-zero meta-analytic intercorrelation (r=.03), allowing them to be stacked in multiple regression without multicollinearity penalties. |
| Which specific facets of Conscientiousness were found to enhance predictive accuracy in the dental student study? | The inclusion of dutifulness, self-discipline, and deliberation improved the prediction accuracy of conscientiousness in the 170-student dental study. |
| How does remote work affect the value of conscientious traits in predicting job performance? | A 2021 study found that conscientiousness has an even more positive impact on work performance when workers operate remotely due to the critical need for self-management. |

Also worth reading: **Conscientiousness predicts job performance: 2026 60-item rho .27 vs .36**: [Conscientiousness predicts job performance: 2026](https://psychprofile.io/blog/conscientiousness-predicts-job-performance-2026-60-item-rho-27-vs-36.php) · **Big Five hiring test: 92% vs 71% finish rate on mobile screens**: [Big Five hiring test: 92%](https://psychprofile.io/blog/big-five-hiring-test-92-vs-71-finish-rate-on-mobile-screens.php) · **Big Five Personality Traits Understanding The Five Factor Model**: [Big Five Personality Traits Understanding](https://psychprofile.io/blog/big-five-personality-traits-understanding-the-five-factor-model.php)

### Related reading

- [BFI-2 Conscientiousness r=.22: Hiring Cutoff vs Feedback](https://psychprofile.io/blog/bfi-2-conscientiousness-r22-hiring-cutoff-vs-feedback.php)
- [Artificial Intelligence Psychology and Your Mental Health](https://psychprofile.io/blog/artificial-intelligence-psychology-and-your-mental-health.php)
- [Understanding the IQ Test Scoring Process Uncovering the Numbers Behind Intelligence](https://psychprofile.io/blog/understanding_the_iq_test_scoring_process_uncovering_the_num.php)
- [Personality test accuracy: 6% vs 0.84 retest for 2026 hiring](https://psychprofile.io/blog/personality-test-accuracy-6-vs-084-retest-for-2026-hiring.php)
- [Big Five hiring test: 92% vs 71% finish rate on mobile screens](https://psychprofile.io/blog/big-five-hiring-test-92-vs-71-finish-rate-on-mobile-screens.php)
- [Conscientiousness predicts job performance: 2026 60-item rho .27 vs .36](https://psychprofile.io/blog/conscientiousness-predicts-job-performance-2026-60-item-rho-27-vs-36.php)

### Latest

- [Student Stress Test 2: 2026 First Choice—Exercise Self-Efficacy, Not Mindfulness](https://psychprofile.io/blog/student-stress-test-2-2026-first-choiceexercise-self-efficacy-not-mindfulness.php)
- [Take a personality test - Open Source Psychometrics Project](https://psychprofile.io/blog/take-a-personality-test-open-source-psychometrics-project.php)
- [Story Ideas for Writers: Up to 8.1% Higher Novelty Ratings—Scaffold Selectively](https://psychprofile.io/blog/story-ideas-for-writers-up-to-81-higher-novelty-ratingsscaffold-selectively.php)

Canonical: https://psychprofile.io/blog/conscientiousness-test-for-hiring-7-over-general-mental-ability-gma-vs-intelligence.php
Markdown: https://psychprofile.io/blog/conscientiousness-test-for-hiring-7-over-general-mental-ability-gma-vs-intelligence.php/index.md