If the study doesn't support the claim, then it should be retracted. I don't think the analysis you linked shows that it should be retracted. It performs a different analysis on the data and the author of it concludes that the original paper overstates its claims. I am going to assume that this criticism is valid.
I can similarly counter with a study that criticizes studies that show a positive correlation with SAT and freshman GPA. For example, [1] cited 440 times performs an analysis showing that these positive correlation studies overstate their claims and over-attribute the freshman grade point average to SAT score. I am certain you can counter with another study (google scholar has 300,000+ links on the topic).
The point I am making is that the value added of SAT/ACT is unclear and not worth the time and money students spend on it. Instead, they could use SAT II or AP test scores, which are subject tests on useful material, that is already taught in schools. At least then students will spend time studying topics they may actually use in the future (chemistry, biology, US history, calculus, physics, Spanish, etc.). It would show that students can learn material on a particular topic and pass a standardized exam on it (which is most of what college is anyway).
I think a large part of why the SAT I is so controversial is because it is testing "broad abilities" and "capacity for future learning" which are definitions that changes over time and it is unclear what that actually means and how useful it is. In contrast, a subject test is clear: Can you learn material on subject X well enough to pass a test on it? If you can, well that's what completing college is like. There are studies that support the use of subject tests (SAT II) over the use of broad psychometric tests (SAT I) [2]. I think that sticking with these "broad intelligence tests" is based more on "well we've done it this way for a long time" than actual utility.
I can similarly counter with a study that criticizes studies that show a positive correlation with SAT and freshman GPA. For example, [1] cited 440 times performs an analysis showing that these positive correlation studies overstate their claims and over-attribute the freshman grade point average to SAT score. I am certain you can counter with another study (google scholar has 300,000+ links on the topic).
The point I am making is that the value added of SAT/ACT is unclear and not worth the time and money students spend on it. Instead, they could use SAT II or AP test scores, which are subject tests on useful material, that is already taught in schools. At least then students will spend time studying topics they may actually use in the future (chemistry, biology, US history, calculus, physics, Spanish, etc.). It would show that students can learn material on a particular topic and pass a standardized exam on it (which is most of what college is anyway).
I think a large part of why the SAT I is so controversial is because it is testing "broad abilities" and "capacity for future learning" which are definitions that changes over time and it is unclear what that actually means and how useful it is. In contrast, a subject test is clear: Can you learn material on subject X well enough to pass a test on it? If you can, well that's what completing college is like. There are studies that support the use of subject tests (SAT II) over the use of broad psychometric tests (SAT I) [2]. I think that sticking with these "broad intelligence tests" is based more on "well we've done it this way for a long time" than actual utility.
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03044... [2] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/S15326977EA0801_...