The evolution of psychometric theories of intelligence from Spearman’s g to contemporary CHC:  With Special analysis and c...
The current set of slides have been adapted and revised from three primary sources.  Viewers of this presentation can find...
Note……icons in the timeline specific slides are not active.  They<br />are only active when using the timeline software us...
Galton lab and individual differences research  (1884-1889)<br />
“Mental test” concept born:  James McKeen Cattell (1885-1890)<br />
Charles Spearman (1904)<br />
CHC evolution<br />Spearman g (general intelligence) + s (specific abilities research (1904-1939)<br />
Spearman developed a “two-factor theory” (general intelligence factor-g + specific factors) to account for correlations be...
T2<br />T3<br />T4<br />T5<br />T6<br />T7<br />T8<br />T9<br />T1<br />T12<br />T10<br />T11<br />g<br />Spearman’s gener...
British factor analysis tradition (1909-1961)<br />The British models suggested that most of the variance of human intelli...
British factor analysis tradition (1909-1961)<br />
American factor analysis tradition (1928-1979)<br />Eckstrom (1979)<br />Thurston (1931)<br />
American factor analysis tradition (1928-1979)<br />
American factor analysis tradition (1928-1979)<br />
American factor analysis tradition (1928-1979)<br />Primary use of multiple factor analysis methods with the rotation of f...
The correlations among oblique factors analyzed to produce “second-order” factors.  </li></ul>Thurstone posited 7-9 primar...
The ETS factor-reference group work established the WERCOF (well-replicated common factors) abilities.
Most modern hierarchical theories of intelligence have their roots in Thurstone’s PMA theory (Horn & Noll, 1977)</li></li>...
Original Gf-Gc Theory  (1941-1965)<br />Raymond Cattell was a student and research associate of Charles Spearman.  <br />H...
Original Gf-Gc Theory  (1941-1965)<br />Raymond Cattell (1941)<br />
Original Gf-Gc Theory  (1941-1965)<br />Raymond Cattell (1943)<br />
T2<br />T3<br />T4<br />T5<br />T6<br />T7<br />T8<br />T9<br />T1<br />T12<br />T10<br />T11<br />PMA1<br />PMA2<br />PMA...
Original Gf-Gc Theory  (1941-1965)<br />According to Carroll (1993), it wasn&apos;t until John Horn, a student of Cattell&...
T2<br />T3<br />T4<br />T5<br />T6<br />T7<br />T8<br />T9<br />T1<br />T12<br />T10<br />T11<br />T2<br />T3<br />T4<br /...
Sidebar note:  The icon key below will be used in subsequent  slides to represent the evolution of psychometric theories a...
Dashed arrows indicate that IQ test was not directly linked to any psychometric  theoretical research listed in timeline. ...
At the end of Psychometric Period A (Early Psychometric Theory Roots) no applied, practical individually administered IQ t...
  Primary focus was on four academic based differential aptitude clusters used for differential prediction of achievement ...
T2<br />T3<br />T4<br />T5<br />T6<br />T7<br />T8<br />T9<br />T1<br />T12<br />T10<br />T11<br />At the end of Psychomet...
Note.  Period C (below) is integrated together with Period B in the next set of slides<br />
Gf-Gc Theory Extended  (1965-1998)<br />Horn, Cattell and others confirm the original Gf-Gc model <br /><ul><li>New broad ...
T2<br />T3<br />T4<br />T5<br />T6<br />T7<br />T8<br />T9<br />T1<br />T12<br />T10<br />T11<br />PMA1<br />PMA2<br />PMA...
Gf-Gc Theory Extended  (1965-1998) – Horn & Stankov (1982)<br />Gc<br />Gf<br />Gv<br />Gs<br />Ga<br />Gt<br />Glr<br />F...
Gf-Gc Theory Extended  (1965-1998) – Gustaffson (1988)<br />Gustaffson(1988) proposed and tested a three-level hierarchica...
Vz<br />Gf-Gc Theory Extended  (1965-1998) – Gustaffson (1988)<br />Gv<br />S<br />Cf<br />Cs<br />CFR<br />Gf<br />g<br /...
Gf-Gc Theory Extended  (1965-1998) – Horn (1994)<br />
Gf-Gc Theory Extended  (1965-1998) – Carroll (1993)<br />After over a decade of independent research, John &quot;Jack&quot...
T2<br />T3<br />T4<br />T5<br />T6<br />T7<br />T8<br />T9<br />T1<br />T12<br />T10<br />T11<br />PMA1<br />PMA2<br />PMA...
The verdict is unanimous re: the importance of Carroll’s (1993) work<br />Richard Snow (1993):<br /> “John Carroll has don...
Gf-Gc Theory Extended  (1965-1998) – Woodcock (1998)<br />(1998)<br />Addition of Grw (general<br />reading/writing broad ...
Gf-Gc Theory Extended  (1965-1998) – Woodcock (1999)<br />Addition of Gq (quantitative knowledge) broad factor/ability as ...
This period of psychometric research resulted in a flurry of test revisions and the introduction of new intelligence batte...
The fortuitous March, 1986 “meeting of the minds” – the CHC<br />Intelligence-to-Theory “flash point”<br />“It is this aut...
WJ-R<br />(1989)<br />John Horn and John “Jack” Carroll were theoretical consultants on the 1989 WJ-R and 2001 WJ III<br /...
What was occurring with the formal AAMD/AAMR/AAIDD IQ component of the definition of MR/ID?<br />Information extracted fro...
T2<br />T3<br />T4<br />T5<br />T6<br />T7<br />T8<br />T9<br />T1<br />T12<br />T10<br />T11<br />At the end of Extended ...
What was occurring with the formal AAMD/AAMR/AAIDD IQ component of the definition of MR/ID?<br />The 2002 manual correctly...
National Research Council, Committee on Disability Determination for Mental Retardation(2002).  In D. J. Reschly, T. G. Me...
At the end of Extended Gf-Gc Period B the intellectual component of official AAMR MR/ID definition was still “stuck on g” ...
(1990)<br />Article analyzed ALL major IQ batteries<br />as per Extended Gf-Gc model<br />
(1991)<br />In WJ-R<br />Technical Manual<br />
(1994)<br />
(1998)<br />(2000)<br />(2001)<br />
Select WJ/WJ-R/WJ III and CHC/Gf-Gc references up to 2002 (in descending order)   <br />1 of 14 slides (in case you don’t ...
Schrank, F. A., & Woodcock, R. W. (2001). WJ III Compuscore and Profiles Program [Woodcock-Johnson  III]. Itasca, IL: Rive...
Brown, M. B., Giandenoto, M. J., & Bolen, L. M. (2000). Diagnosing written language disabilities using the Woodcock-Johnso...
Woodcock, R. W. (1997). The Woodcock Johnson Tests of Cognitive Ability Revised. New York, NY: Gillford Press .<br />Schul...
Ochoa, S. H., Powell, M. P., & Robles-Pina, R. (1996). School psychologists&apos; assessment practices with bilingual and ...
Hooper, S. R. (1995). Relationship between the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery and Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Ach...
McGhee, R., & Liberman, L. (1994). Gf-Gc Theory of human cognition: Differentiation of short-term auditory and visual memo...
Mather, N. (1993). Critical issues in the diagnosis of learning disabilities addressed by the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educ...
Dunn, C., McGhee, R., & Bryant, B. R. (1992). A validation study of the Detroit Tests of Learning Aptitude-Primary:  Secon...
Powers, A. D. (1989). Fourth edition of the Stanford-Binet Intellgence Scale and the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement...
Bracken, B. A. (1986). Incidence of basic concepts in the directions of five commonly used American test of intelligence. ...
McGrew, K. S. (1984). Normative-based guides for subtest profile interpretation of the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive...
The Ninth Mental Measurements Yearbook. (1983). T. Kaufman Review of the Woodcock Johnson Psycho Eudcational Battery, in J...
Shinn, M., Algozzine, B., Martston, D., & Ysseldyke, J. (1980). Review of Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery. Sch...
(McGrew, 1997) – Integrated Cattell-Horn and Cattell Gf-Gc Model <br />
(1997)<br />
(1997)<br />
(1997)<br />
(1997)<br />Origin of combined Cattell-Horn and Carroll models into Integrated Gf-Gc model framework..later to be called C...
Carroll and Cattell-Horn Model Comparison<br />g<br />Gf<br />Gy<br />Gv<br />Gs<br />Gt<br />Gc<br />Gr<br />Gu<br />Carr...
(McGrew, 1997) – Integrated Cattell-Horn and Cattell Gf-Gc Model <br />
T2<br />T3<br />T4<br />T5<br />T6<br />T7<br />T8<br />T9<br />T1<br />T12<br />T10<br />T11<br />PMA1<br />PMA2<br />PMA...
Note…details from this period (E) not dealt with in current slide show<br />
McGrew, K. S. (2005).  The Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory of cognitive abilities:  Past, present and future. In D. Flan...
g<br />T2<br />T3<br />T4<br />T5<br />T6<br />T7<br />T8<br />T9<br />T1<br />T12<br />T10<br />T11<br />T2<br />T3<br />...
CHC-IQ test design bandwagon begins:  Other major IQ tests are revised and place the CHC model as the center of each batte...
WJ III<br />(2001)<br />CHC IQ test bandwagon<br />SB-V<br />(2003)<br />KABC-II<br />(2004)<br />DAS-II<br />(2007)<br />...
(2003)<br />(2001; 2007)<br />(2004)<br />(2007)<br />
National Research Council, Committee on Disability Determination for Mental Retardation(2002).  In D. J. Reschly, T. G. Me...
AAIDD 11th edition (green manual) published 2010<br />“Stuck on g”<br />Quotes from manual (emphasis via underline added b...
Not to be covered in current presentation<br />National MR/ID expert panel recognized CHC theory and trend toward CHC-base...
Thecurrent AAIDD ID definition is still “stuck on g” (general intelligence)…and continues to be out of step with  contempo...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Evolution of psychometric IQ theories from Spearman g to CHC: With special analysis of AAIDD ID/MR 2010 manaul

7,886 views

Published on

This presentation traces the evolution of psychometric theories of intelligence from Spearman's g to contemporary CHC. In addition, it simultaneously tracks the evolution of psychometric tests of intelligence as they relate to psychometric theories. Finally, there is a special emphasis on tracking changes in the AAMR/AAIDD intellectual disability (mental retardation) classification manuals over the same period. It is concluded that despite significant advances in psychometric theories of intelligence and contemporary psychometric intelligence tests, the official 2010 AAIDD manual is significantly behind these developments. The 2010 AAIDD manual is "stuck on g" and has failed to incorporate advances in both psychometric theories and tests of intelligence. A significant intelligence theory--AAIDD ID/MR definition gap exists tat has potential serious consequences for individuals with ID/MR.

0 Comments
3 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
7,886
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
42
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
232
Comments
0
Likes
3
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Evolution of psychometric IQ theories from Spearman g to CHC: With special analysis of AAIDD ID/MR 2010 manaul

  1. 1. The evolution of psychometric theories of intelligence from Spearman’s g to contemporary CHC: With Special analysis and commentary on the 2010 AAIDD ID/MR definition—intelligence theory gap<br />Kevin S. McGrew, PhD.<br />Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP) – Director<br />[www.iapsych.com]<br />Conflict of interest disclosure: Kevin McGrew is a co-author of (and thus has a financial interest in) the WJ III Battery, a battery of cognitive and achievement tests mentioned in this presentation. This presentation reflects the views of Kevin McGrew and do not necessarily reflect the views of the other WJ III authors or the publisher of the battery. <br />
  2. 2. The current set of slides have been adapted and revised from three primary sources. Viewers of this presentation can find additional background information and detail by consulting the following sources.<br />The IAP CHC Timeline Project @ http://tinyurl.com/ykz4wwm<br />McGrew, K. (2009).  Editorial:  CHC theory and the human cognitive abilities project: Standing on the shoulders of the giants of psychometric intelligence research, Intelligence, 37, 1-10. <br />McGrew, K. S. (2005).  The Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory of cognitive abilities:  Past, present and future. In D. Flanagan, & Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues-Second Edition (p.136-202). New York: Guilford Press<br />(both manuscripts can be accessed @ http://tinyurl.com/ykzesml<br />
  3. 3. Note……icons in the timeline specific slides are not active. They<br />are only active when using the timeline software used to develop <br />the CHC Timeline Project<br />
  4. 4. Galton lab and individual differences research (1884-1889)<br />
  5. 5. “Mental test” concept born: James McKeen Cattell (1885-1890)<br />
  6. 6. Charles Spearman (1904)<br />
  7. 7. CHC evolution<br />Spearman g (general intelligence) + s (specific abilities research (1904-1939)<br />
  8. 8. Spearman developed a “two-factor theory” (general intelligence factor-g + specific factors) to account for correlations between measures of sensory-discrimination (Galton tradition).<br />Carroll (1993) suggested that it might be better called a &quot;one-general-factor theory.&quot; g was hypothesized to represent a fixed amount of “mental energy.” Spearman hypothesized that the g factor involved three major mental processes--apprehension of experience; eduction of relations; eduction of correlates. <br />Spearman generally credited with introducing the notion of factor analysis to the study of human abilities. <br />According to Carroll (1993), Spearman and his students eventually began to study other possible factors beyond g. The Spearman-Holzginer Model, which was based on Holzinger&apos;s development of the &quot;bi-factor&quot; method, suggested g plus five group factors (verbal, perceptual speed, spatial relations, recognition, and associative memory) (Spearman, 1939).<br />
  9. 9. T2<br />T3<br />T4<br />T5<br />T6<br />T7<br />T8<br />T9<br />T1<br />T12<br />T10<br />T11<br />g<br />Spearman’s general factor model<br />(T# = designates different test measures)<br />
  10. 10. British factor analysis tradition (1909-1961)<br />The British models suggested that most of the variance of human intelligence was attributable to g and to very small group factors, and that the importance of the broader group factors was meager (Gustafsson, 1988). <br />According to Gustafsson (1988), Burt’s model was to a great extent “logically constructed” and thus did not have major impact. In contrast, Horn stated that Burt’s model was very influential (Horn & Noll, 1997). <br />Vernon &apos;s (1950, 1961) model, which had a g-factor at the apex of the hierarchy, and at the next level two major group-factors (verbal-numerical-educational-v:ed; spatial-practical-mechanical-physical--k:m) received more widespread attention.<br />
  11. 11. British factor analysis tradition (1909-1961)<br />
  12. 12. American factor analysis tradition (1928-1979)<br />Eckstrom (1979)<br />Thurston (1931)<br />
  13. 13. American factor analysis tradition (1928-1979)<br />
  14. 14. American factor analysis tradition (1928-1979)<br />
  15. 15. American factor analysis tradition (1928-1979)<br />Primary use of multiple factor analysis methods with the rotation of factors according to the “simple structure” criterion.<br /><ul><li>This method does not readily identify a g-factor.
  16. 16. The correlations among oblique factors analyzed to produce “second-order” factors. </li></ul>Thurstone posited 7-9 primary mental abilities (PMAs) independent of a higher-order g-factor. <br />Carroll(1993) reports that Thurstone (1947) was willing to accept the possible existence of a g (general factor) above his primary mental abilities--and thus, suggests that Thurstone&apos;s model of human cognitive abilities was not fundamentally different from the Spearman--Holzingerg+group factors model. <br /><ul><li>The primary difference was the relative importance of the first-order primary mental abilities and the second-order g-factor Carroll (1993). </li></ul>1940s-1960s saw many factor studies of human cognitive abilities conducted in the “Thurstonetradtion&quot; (Carroll, 1993). <br /><ul><li>Summaries of the large body of PMA-based factor research suggestedover 60 possible separate primary mental abilities (Ekstrom, French, & Harmon, 1979; French, 1951; French, Eckstrom, & Price, 1963; Guilford, 1967; Hakstian & Cattell, 1974; Horn, 1972).
  17. 17. The ETS factor-reference group work established the WERCOF (well-replicated common factors) abilities.
  18. 18. Most modern hierarchical theories of intelligence have their roots in Thurstone’s PMA theory (Horn & Noll, 1977)</li></li></ul><li>T2<br />T3<br />T4<br />T5<br />T6<br />T7<br />T8<br />T9<br />T1<br />T12<br />T10<br />T11<br />PMA1<br />PMA2<br />PMA3<br />PMA4<br />…etc<br />…etc<br />American factor analysis tradition (1928-1979)<br />Thurston’s Multiple Factor (Primary Mental Abilities) Model<br />(T# = designates different test measures)<br />(PMA# = different “primary mental ability”)<br />
  19. 19. Original Gf-Gc Theory (1941-1965)<br />Raymond Cattell was a student and research associate of Charles Spearman. <br />He proposed the original Gf-Gc theory of intelligence (Cattell, 1941, 1943 ), the formal beginning of the Cattell-Horn Gf-Gc theory. Fluid (Gf) and Crystallized (Gc) intelligence factors were extracted from second-order factor analysis of first-order (e.g., PMA) abilities<br />Gf intelligence reflected basic reasoning abilities and higher mental processes while Gc intelligence reflected what an individual had learned from exposure to their culture through education and experiences, via the &quot;investment&quot; of their Gf abilities. <br />
  20. 20. Original Gf-Gc Theory (1941-1965)<br />Raymond Cattell (1941)<br />
  21. 21. Original Gf-Gc Theory (1941-1965)<br />Raymond Cattell (1943)<br />
  22. 22. T2<br />T3<br />T4<br />T5<br />T6<br />T7<br />T8<br />T9<br />T1<br />T12<br />T10<br />T11<br />PMA1<br />PMA2<br />PMA3<br />PMA4<br />Gf<br />Gc<br />…etc<br />…etc<br />…etc<br />Original Gf-Gc Theory (1941-1965)<br />Cattell Dichotomous Gf-Gc (no g) Model<br />(T# = designates different test measures)<br />(PMA# = different “primary mental ability”)<br />. Cattell & Horn’s Fluid (Gf) and Crystallized (Gc) intelligence factors were extracted from second-order factor analysis of first-order (e.g., PMA) abilities.<br />
  23. 23. Original Gf-Gc Theory (1941-1965)<br />According to Carroll (1993), it wasn&apos;t until John Horn, a student of Cattell&apos;s, completed his dissertation (Horn, 1965) that there was &quot;the first clear test of the theory.&quot;<br />
  24. 24. T2<br />T3<br />T4<br />T5<br />T6<br />T7<br />T8<br />T9<br />T1<br />T12<br />T10<br />T11<br />T2<br />T3<br />T4<br />T5<br />T6<br />T7<br />T8<br />T9<br />T1<br />T12<br />T10<br />T11<br />T2<br />T3<br />T4<br />T5<br />T6<br />T7<br />T8<br />T9<br />T1<br />T12<br />T10<br />T11<br />PMA1<br />PMA2<br />PMA3<br />PMA4<br />PMA1<br />PMA2<br />PMA3<br />PMA4<br />…etc<br />…etc<br />Gf<br />Gc<br />…etc<br />…etc<br />…etc<br />At the end of Psychometric Period A (Early Psychometric Theory Roots)<br />Three Dominant Psychometric Models of Intelligence Existed<br />g<br />Thurston’s Multiple Factor (Primary Mental Abilities) Model<br />Cattell Dichotomous Gf-Gc (no g) Model<br />Spearman’s general factor model<br />
  25. 25. Sidebar note: The icon key below will be used in subsequent slides to represent the evolution of psychometric theories and tests of intelligence<br /> General<br />Ability (g)<br />Dichotomous<br />Abilities<br />Multiple<br />Cognitive Abilities<br />(Incomplete; not implicitly<br />or explicitly CHC-organized<br />Multiple<br />Cognitive Abilities<br />(Incomplete; implicitly<br />or explicitly CHC-organized<br />Multiple<br />Cognitive Abilities<br />(“Complete”; implicitly<br />or explicitly CHC-organized<br />g<br />Broad Abilities <br />
  26. 26. Dashed arrows indicate that IQ test was not directly linked to any psychometric theoretical research listed in timeline. Solid arrows represent IQ tests grounded in a particular psychometric based theory<br />Stanford-Binet LM (1937; 1960; 1972)<br />Binet<br />Simon test<br />(1905)<br />Terman & Merrill Stanford Revision and Extension<br />(1916,1937)<br />At the end of this period of psychometric research & theory development, no individually administered IQ test had been explicitly based on a psychometrically-based theory of intelligence. The IQ theory-test gap had not yet been bridged<br />Wechsler Bellevue (1939, 1946) WISC (1949)<br />WPPSI (1967) WISC-R (1974)<br />WJ (1977)<br />
  27. 27. At the end of Psychometric Period A (Early Psychometric Theory Roots) no applied, practical individually administered IQ test was explicitly grounded in a psychometric-based theory (IQ theory-test gap)<br />Stanford-Binet was an atheoretical applied measure that provided a g-type global score.<br />Wechsler batteries were atheoretical applied measures that provided a g-type global score. <br /><ul><li> Wechsler did not consider his verbal/performance dichotomy to represent different abilities, rather he asserted that the dichotomy “merely implies that these are different ways in which intelligence may manifest itself “(Wechsler, 1958, p. 64). </li></ul>WJ battery was an atheoretical applied battery deliberately designed as per a “pragmatic decision-making model” (Woodcock, 1977). It also provided a g-type global score.<br /><ul><li>Four separate ability construct measures (Verbal, Reasoning, Memory and Perceptual Speed) were more-or-less secondary level interpretation features and not the primary focus of the battery.
  28. 28. Primary focus was on four academic based differential aptitude clusters used for differential prediction of achievement and calculation of aptitude-achievement discrepancies.</li></li></ul><li>What was occurring with the formal AAMD/AAMR/AAIDD IQ component of the definition of MR/ID?<br />Information extracted from Greesspan & Switzky (2006) chapter: “Forty-four years of AAMR Manuals”<br />1961 <br />manual<br />1973 <br />manual<br />1983 <br />manual<br />Mental retardation refers to significantly subaveragegeneral intellectual functioning existing concurrently with deficits in adaptive behavior and manifested during the developmental period<br />Mental retardation refers to subaveragegeneral intellectual functioning which originates during the developmental period and is associated with impairment in adaptive behavior.<br />
  29. 29. T2<br />T3<br />T4<br />T5<br />T6<br />T7<br />T8<br />T9<br />T1<br />T12<br />T10<br />T11<br />At the end of Psychometric Period A (Early Psychometric Theory Roots) the intellectual component of official AAMR MR/ID definition focused on g (general intelligence)<br />g<br />Mental retardation refers to significantly sub-average general intellectual functioning existing concurrently with deficits in adaptive behavior and manifested during the developmental period (1983)<br />Spearman’s general factor model<br />
  30. 30. Note. Period C (below) is integrated together with Period B in the next set of slides<br />
  31. 31. Gf-Gc Theory Extended (1965-1998)<br />Horn, Cattell and others confirm the original Gf-Gc model <br /><ul><li>New broad Gv, Gs, Glr, Gsm and Ga factors added to model</li></ul>Horn&apos;s (1976) review in the Annual Review of Psychology provides support for an expanded Gf-Gc model. <br />Carroll & Maxwell&apos;s (1979) review in the Annual Review of Psychology, although not using classic Gf-Gc or contemporary CHC terms, suggests support for up to 9 different broad Gf-Gc abilities. <br /><ul><li>Carroll & Maxwell discuss (a) Language Abilities and Skills [Gc, Grw], (b) Creativity and Fluency of Ideation [Glr], (c) Thinking, Reasoning and Problem Solving [Gf], (d) Abilities Concerned with Number and Quantity [Gq ], (e) Perceptual Skills and Processes in Vision and Audition [Gv, Ga], (f) Memory Skills and Capacities [Gsm, Glr], and (g) Cognitive Speed [Gs]--[note--insertion of contemporary CHC broad ability abbreviations provided by this author--K. McGrew]. </li></ul>The general framework for Carroll&apos;s eventual Three-Stratum hierarchical model is outlined in a 1985 paper presentation by Carroll. <br />Support for the additional broad G-factors is based on the combination of structural (factor analytic), developmental, heritability, neurocognitive, and outcome-criterion evidence research. <br />Horn (1994) publishes probably his most succinct and understandable overview of extended Gf-Gc theory in The Encyclopedia of Intelligence (Sternberg, 1994).<br />
  32. 32. T2<br />T3<br />T4<br />T5<br />T6<br />T7<br />T8<br />T9<br />T1<br />T12<br />T10<br />T11<br />PMA1<br />PMA2<br />PMA3<br />PMA4<br />G1<br />G2<br />G3<br />…etc<br />…etc<br />…etc<br />Gf-Gc Theory Extended (1965-1998) Horn & Catell<br />Cattell-Horn Gf-Gc Hierarchical (no g) Model<br />(T# = designates different test measures)<br />(PMA# = different “primary mental ability”)<br />
  33. 33. Gf-Gc Theory Extended (1965-1998) – Horn & Stankov (1982)<br />Gc<br />Gf<br />Gv<br />Gs<br />Ga<br />Gt<br />Glr<br />Factor abbreviation print clarification (and<br />translation to contemporary<br />CHC terms) completed by K.<br />McGrew 7-11-09<br />Gsm<br />
  34. 34. Gf-Gc Theory Extended (1965-1998) – Gustaffson (1988)<br />Gustaffson(1988) proposed and tested a three-level hierarchical LISREL model (HILI) model as a general unifying framework for integrating the British (Spearman, Burt, Vernon) and American (Thurston, Cattell, Horn) traditions of psychometric/theoretical research.<br />According to Gustaffson, most all prior historical models (e.g., Cattell-Horn; Vernon) can be viewed as “classes” of models within the general HILI framework. <br />Suggests that Gf may be identical to g.<br />
  35. 35. Vz<br />Gf-Gc Theory Extended (1965-1998) – Gustaffson (1988)<br />Gv<br />S<br />Cf<br />Cs<br />CFR<br />Gf<br />g<br />I<br />Factor abbreviation clarifications) <br />completed by K.<br />McGrew 7-11-09<br />Ms<br />V<br />Gc<br />Ve Ach<br />Nu Ach<br />
  36. 36. Gf-Gc Theory Extended (1965-1998) – Horn (1994)<br />
  37. 37. Gf-Gc Theory Extended (1965-1998) – Carroll (1993)<br />After over a decade of independent research, John &quot;Jack&quot; Carroll (1993) presents the most comprehensive empirically based synthesis of the extant factor analytic research (from prior 40+ years) regarding the structure of human cognitive abilities. <br />The structure includes three hierarchical levels (strata) of abilities (narrow, broad, general) that differ by breadth of generality. <br />The resulting summary provided a working taxonomy of human cognitive abilities by which to guide research and intelligence testing practice. <br />Carroll&apos;s (1993) work is considered a seminal or classic work (see next slide)<br />After reviewing most all available models of human intelligence, Carroll (1993) concluded that the Cattell-Horn model was the model most similar to that established from his review of the extant factor analytic research. <br /><ul><li>There were some differences between the Cattell-Horn and Carroll models, with the most salient point of disagreement being the inclusion (Carroll) or omission (Cattell-Horn) of a stratum-level general intelligence (g) ability at the apex of the structure of human cognitive abilities.</li></li></ul><li>Gf-Gc Theory Extended (1965-1998) – Carroll (1993, 1997)<br />
  38. 38. T2<br />T3<br />T4<br />T5<br />T6<br />T7<br />T8<br />T9<br />T1<br />T12<br />T10<br />T11<br />PMA1<br />PMA2<br />PMA3<br />PMA4<br />Gf-Gc Theory Extended (1965-1998) – Carroll 1993)<br />Arrows from g to each test<br />(rectangle) have been omitted for readability<br />Stratum III<br />g<br />G1<br />Stratum II<br />G2<br />…etc<br />Stratum I<br />…etc<br />…etc<br />Carroll’s Schmid-Leiman Hierarchical Three-Stratum Model<br />(T# = designates different test measures)<br />(PMA# = different “primary mental ability”)<br />
  39. 39. The verdict is unanimous re: the importance of Carroll’s (1993) work<br />Richard Snow (1993):<br /> “John Carroll has done a magnificent thing. He has reviewed and reanalyzed the world’s literature on individual differences in cognitive abilities…no one else could have done it… it defines the taxonomy of cognitive differential psychology for many years to come.” <br />Burns (1994):<br />Carroll’s book “is simply the finest work of research and scholarship I have read and is destined to be the classic study and referencework on human abilities for decades to come” (p. 35).<br /> <br />John Horn (1998):<br />A “tour de force summary and integration” that is the “definitive foundation for current theory” (p. 58).  Horn compared Carroll’s summary to “Mendelyev’s first presentation of a periodic table of elements in chemistry” (p. 58).  <br />Arthur Jensen (2004):<br />“…on my first reading this tome, in 1993, I was reminded of the conductor Hans von Bülow’s exclamation on first reading the full orchestral score of Wagner’s Die Meistersinger, ‘‘It’s impossible, but there it is!’’ <br />“Carroll’s magnum opus thus distills and synthesizes the results of a century of factor analyses of mental tests. It is virtually the grand finale of the era of psychometric description and taxonomy of human cognitive abilities. It is unlikely that his monumental feat will ever be attempted again by anyone, or that it could be much improved on. It will long be the key reference point and a solid foundation for the explanatory era of differential psychology that we now see burgeoning in genetics and the brain sciences” (p. 5).<br />
  40. 40. Gf-Gc Theory Extended (1965-1998) – Woodcock (1998)<br />(1998)<br />Addition of Grw (general<br />reading/writing broad factor), similar to “English language use” factor/ability suggested by Horn over a number of years<br />
  41. 41. Gf-Gc Theory Extended (1965-1998) – Woodcock (1999)<br />Addition of Gq (quantitative knowledge) broad factor/ability as distinct from quantitative reasoning under Gf broad factor.<br />
  42. 42. This period of psychometric research resulted in a flurry of test revisions and the introduction of new intelligence batteries measuring multiple cognitive abilities<br />Venerable Wechsler and SB batteries revised to reflect research that suggested a number of broad cognitive abilities (between g and narrow abilities). Both moved to four-factor/index models. Note that arrows are still dashed as these developments were not explicitly based on a “complete” psychometric theoretical model of intelligence. Same designation holds for original DAS (1990)<br />Movement in IQ test development was clearly the embracing of more broad multiple cognitive abilities as most all (excluding KAIT) new tests provided at least four cluster/composite ability measures.<br />Note solid arrows for K-ABC and CAS as they were theory-based, albeit on non-psychometric models of intelligence (Luria-Das). KAIT also noted with bold arrow as it was grounded in Cattell’s original dichotomous Gf-Gc theoretical model<br />Due to space limitations the most significant IQ test development event (Ext. Gf-Gc theory based WJ-R) is reported separately (a few slides later)<br />SB-IV<br />(1986)<br />WISC-III(1991)<br />WAIS-III (1997)<br />WAIS-R<br /> (1981)<br />K-ABC<br />(1983)<br />CAS (1997)<br />DAS<br />(1990)<br />KAIT (1993)<br />
  43. 43. The fortuitous March, 1986 “meeting of the minds” – the CHC<br />Intelligence-to-Theory “flash point”<br />“It is this author’s personal opinion, that this moment, a moment where the interests and wisdom of a leading applied test developer (Woodcock), the leading proponent of Cattell-Horn Gf-Gc theory (Horn), and one of the preeminent educational psychologists and scholars of the factor analysis of human abilities (Carroll) intersected (see section C in Table 1), was the flash point that resulted in all subsequent theory-to--practice bridging events that led to today’s CHC theory and related assessment developments.  A fortuitous set of events had resulted in the psychometric stars aligning themselves in perfect position to lead the way for most all subsequent CHC assessment related developments.” (McGrew, 2004, 2005)<br />
  44. 44. WJ-R<br />(1989)<br />John Horn and John “Jack” Carroll were theoretical consultants on the 1989 WJ-R and 2001 WJ III<br />Thus, the WJ-R was the first IQ battery to bridge the contemporary intelligence theory/research and assessment practice gap<br />WJ III<br />(2001)<br />
  45. 45. What was occurring with the formal AAMD/AAMR/AAIDD IQ component of the definition of MR/ID?<br />Information extracted from Greesspan & Switzky (2006) chapter: “Forty-four years of AAMR Manuals”<br />Note. Both 1992 and 2002 AAMR models dropped the word “general” from “general intellectual functioning” – result was reference only to intellectual functioning.<br />1992 <br />manual<br />2002 <br />manual<br />Mental retardation refers to substantial limitations in present functioning. It is characterized by significantly subaverageintellectual functioning , existing concurrently with related limitations in two or more of the following applicable adaptive skill areas; communication, self-care, home living, social skills, community use, self-direction, health and safety, functional academics, leisure and work. Mental retardation manifests itself before age 18<br />Mental retardation is a disability characterized by significant limitations in intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior as expressed in conceptual, social, and practical living skills. This disability originates before age 18.<br />
  46. 46. T2<br />T3<br />T4<br />T5<br />T6<br />T7<br />T8<br />T9<br />T1<br />T12<br />T10<br />T11<br />At the end of Extended Gf-Gc Period the intellectual component of official AAMR MR/ID definition focused on intellectual functioning and not “general” intellectual functioning…almost..but…<br />g<br />According to Greenspan & Switzky (2006), an innovation in the 2002 manual was an effort to conceptually define intelligence as “a general mental ability [that] includes reasoning, planning, solving problems, thinking abstractly, comprehending complex ides, learning quickly, and learning from experience” (p. 51)<br />However, intellectual functioning was operationally defined as being based on a “general functioning IQ”<br />The manual (correctly, IMHO) noted the movement among intelligence scholars, as reflected in the above referenced psychometric period of research and theory (as defined by current author—Kevin McGrew), away from a reliance on a single measure of “g” (general intelligence). But…….<br />“until more robust instruments based upon one of the many promising multifactor theories of intellectual abilities are developed and demonstrated to be psychometrically sound, we will continue to rely on a global (general factor) IQ [score]. (p. 66).<br />Spearman’s general factor model<br />
  47. 47. What was occurring with the formal AAMD/AAMR/AAIDD IQ component of the definition of MR/ID?<br />The 2002 manual correctly noted the movement among intelligence scholars, away from a reliance on a single measure of “g” (general intelligence). But…the manual was incorrect in the following conclusion<br />“until more robust instruments based upon one of the many promising multifactor theories of intellectual abilities are developed and demonstrated to be psychometrically sound, we will continue to rely on a global (general factor) IQ [score]. (p. 66).<br />Instruments based upon the then recognized Extended Gf-Gc theory had “bridged” the intelligence theory-IQ assessment gap 13 years earlier, and had been advanced further in 2001.<br />1992 <br />manual<br />2002 <br />manual<br />WJ III<br />(2001)<br />WJ-R<br />(1989)<br />Contemporary Psychometric Intelligence Theory—AAMR MR Def. Gap<br />
  48. 48. National Research Council, Committee on Disability Determination for Mental Retardation(2002). In D. J. Reschly, T. G. Meters, & C. R. Hartel (Eds.), Mental retardation: Determining eligibility for Social Security benefits. Washington, DC: National Academy Press<br />In 2002, a national panel of MR<br />experts recognized the clear CHC movement in the design and revision of IQ tests used to identify MR/ID. More importantly, there was a recognition of a movement (based on solid psychometric theory research) on part scores and less reliance on a g-based full scale total composite IQ score<br />
  49. 49. At the end of Extended Gf-Gc Period B the intellectual component of official AAMR MR/ID definition was still “stuck on g” (general intelligence)…and a contemporary intelligence theory-AAMR MR definition gapnow existed<br />Three and 13 years prior to the publication of the 1992 and 2002 AAMR manuals respectively, the first-ever IQ (+ ACH) battery (WJ-R) explicitly based on the then known and validated Extended Gf-Gc theory, was published (1989), a battery that measured 9 broad Gf-Gc abilities and also provided general intelligence (g) composite scores (Broad Cognitive Ability)<br />The 1992 manual made no mention of Ext. Gf-Gc theory nor the WJ-R. The manuals list of IQ instruments included the SB-IV, Wechsler batteries, and K-ABC (p. 37) and not the 1989 WJ-R.<br />10 years later (2002) the red manual recognized and referenced the seminal work of Carroll (1993) yet (a) referenced outdated articles for Horn & Cattell (1963, 1966) that reflected a lack of awareness of Ext. Gf-Gc Theory, (b) did not recognize that the Carroll and Cattell-Horn models were very similal models (major difference was over validity of g) and both were descendants of the Spearman psychometric tradition, (c) listed only non-Gf-Gc developed IQ batteries (Wechslers, SB-IV, CAS, K-ABC, and other special purpose tests) and omitted the 1989 (WJ-R) which had been published 13 years previously, and (d) failed to recognize a sizeable number of Cattell-Horn, Carroll, and WJ-R focused journal publications, books and book chapters published well before the 2002 manual revision.[See illustrative, but not exhaustive, WJ (and select Gf-Gc/CHC model references) reference list and examples on next set of slides].<br />Contemporary Psychometric Intelligence Theory—AAMR MR Def. Gap<br />
  50. 50. (1990)<br />Article analyzed ALL major IQ batteries<br />as per Extended Gf-Gc model<br />
  51. 51.
  52. 52. (1991)<br />In WJ-R<br />Technical Manual<br />
  53. 53. (1994)<br />
  54. 54. (1998)<br />(2000)<br />(2001)<br />
  55. 55. Select WJ/WJ-R/WJ III and CHC/Gf-Gc references up to 2002 (in descending order) <br />1 of 14 slides (in case you don’t want to view them all and want to skip ahead<br />Woodcock, R. W. (2002). New looks in the assessment of cognitive ability. Peabody Journal of Education, 77(2), 6-22.<br />Vanderwood, M. L., McGrew, K. S., Flanagan, D. P., & Keith, T. Z. (2002). The contribution of general and specific cognitive abilities to reading achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 13, 159-188.<br />Schrank, F. A., Flanagan, D. P., Woodcock, R. W., & Mascolo, J. T. (2002). Essentials of WJ III Cognitive Abilities Assessment. New York: John Wiley.<br />Osmon, D., & Jackson, R. (2002). Inspection time and IQ: Fluid or perceptual aspects of intelligence? Intelligence, 30(2), 119-128.<br />McGrew, K. S., Woodcock, R. W., & Ford, L. (2002). The Woodcock-Johnson--Third Edition (WJ III): Description and application with adolescents and adults. In A. Kaufman, N. Kaufman, & E. Lichtenberg (Eds.), Clinical assessment with adolescents and adults (2nd ed., ). New York: John Wiley.<br />McGrew, K. S. (2002). Advanced interpretation of the Woodcock-Johnson III. Workshop presented at the annual convention of the National Association of School Psychologists Chicago, IL.<br />McArdle, J. J., FerrerCaja, E., Hamagami, F., & Woodcock, R. W. (2002). Comparative longitudinal structural analyses of the growth and decline of multiple intellectual abilities over the life span. Developmental Psychology, 38(1), 115-142.<br />Lee, E., Murry, V. M., Brody, G., & Parker, V. (2002). Maternal resources, parenting, and dietary patterns among rural African American children in single-parent families. Public Health Nursing, 19(2), 104-111.<br />Huff, E., Sorenson, J., & Dancer, J. (2002). Relation of reading rate and rapid automatic naming among third graders. Perceptual Motor Skills, 95(3 Pt 1), 925-926.<br />Gregg, N., & Mather, N. (2002). School is fun at recess: Informal analyses of written language for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35( 1), 7-22.<br />Evans, J. J., Floyd, R. G., McGrew, K. S., & Leforgee, M. H. (2002). The relations between measures of Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) cognitive abilities and reading achievement during childhood and adolescence. School Psychology Review, 31(2), 246-262.<br />Daleiden, E., Drabman, R. S., & Benton, J. (2002). The Guide to the Assessment of Test Session Behavior: Validity in relation to cognitive testing and parent-reported behavior problems in a clinical sample. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 31(2), 263-271.<br />Bell, N. L., Rucker, M., Finch, A., & Alexander, J. (2002). Concurrent validity of the Slosson Full-Range Intelligence Test: Comparison with the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children--Third Edition and the Woodcock Johnson Tests of Achievement--Revised. Psychology in the Schools, 39(1), 31-38.<br />Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.<br />
  56. 56. Schrank, F. A., & Woodcock, R. W. (2001). WJ III Compuscore and Profiles Program [Woodcock-Johnson III]. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.<br />Rizza, M. G., McIntosh, D. E., & McCunn, A. (2001). Profile analysis of the Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities with gifted students. Psychology in the Schools, 38(5), 447-455.<br />McGrew, K. S., & Woodcock, R. W. (2001). Technical Manual. Woodcock-Johnson III. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.<br />McGrew, K. S., Gregg, N., Hoy, C., Stennett, R., Davis, M., Knight, D., Coleman, C., & Ford, L. (2001). Cattell-Horn-Carroll confirmatory factor analysis of the WJ III, WAIS-III, WMS-III and KAIT in a university sample. manuscript in preparation.<br />Mather, N., & Woodcock, R. W. (2001). Examiner&apos;s Manual. Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.<br />Mather, N., & Woodcock, R. W. (2001). Examiner&apos;s Manual. Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievment. Itasca, IL.<br />Mather, N., Wendling, B. J., & Woodcock, R. W. (2001). Essentials of WJ III Tests of Achievement assessment. John Wiley & Sons.<br />Mather, N., & Schrank, F. A. (2001). Assessment Service Bulletin No. 3, Use of the WJ III discrepancy procedures for learning disabilities identification and diagnosis. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.<br />Mather, D. S. (2001). Does dyslexia develop from learning the alphabet in the wrong hemisphere? A cognitive neuroscience analysis. Brain and Language, 76(3), 282-316.<br />Keith, T. Z., Kranzler, J. H., & Flanagan, D. P. (2001). What does the cognitive assessment system (CAS) measure? Joint confirmatory factor analysis of the CAS and the Woodcock-Johnson tests of cognitive ability (3rd edition). School Psychology Review, 30(1), 89-119.<br />Flanagan, D. P., & Ortiz, S. (2001). Essentials of cross-battery assessment. New York: John Wiley & Sons.<br />Roid, G. H., & Woodcock, R. H. (2000). Uses of Rasch scaling in the measurement of cognitive development and growth. Journal of Outcome Measurement, 4(2), 579-594.<br />Flanagan, D. P., McGrew, K. S., & Ortiz, S. (2000). The Wechsler Intelligence Scales and Gf-Gc Theory: A contemproary approach to interpretation. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.<br />Flanagan, D. P. (2000). Wechsler-based CHC cross-battery assessment and reading achievement: Strengthening the validity of interpretations drawn from Wechsler test scores. School Psychology Quarterly, 15(3), 295-329.<br />Dumont, R., Willis, J. O., Farr, L. P., McCarthy, T., & Price, L. (2000). The relationship between the Differential Ability Scales (DAS) and the Woodcock-Johnson tests of Cognitive ability-revised (WJ-R COG) for students referred for special education evaluations. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 18(1), 27-38.<br />
  57. 57. Brown, M. B., Giandenoto, M. J., & Bolen, L. M. (2000). Diagnosing written language disabilities using the Woodcock-Johnson tests of educational achievement-revised and the wechsler individual achievement test. Psychological Reports, 87(1), 197-204.<br />Dean, R. S. & Woodcock. R. W. (1999). The WJ-R and Bateria-R in Neuropsychological Assessment . Itasca, IL: Riverside.<br />Davison, M. L., Kuang, H., & Kim, S.-K. (1999). The Structure of Ability Profile Patterns: A Multidemensional Scaling Perspective on the Structure of Intellect. P. L. Ackerman, P. C. Kyllonen, & R. D. Roberts Learning and Individual Differnces (Vol. 8pp. 187-207). Washington,DC: American Psychological Association.<br />Woodcock, R. W. (1998). Extending Gf-Gc theory into practice. In J. J. McArdle, & R. W. Woodcock (Eds.), Human cognitive abilities in theory and practice . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.<br />Snow, R. E. (1998). Abilities and aptitudes and achievements in learning situations. In J.J. McArdle, & R.W. Woodcock (Eds.), Human Cognitive Abilities in Theory and Practice (pp. 93-112). Mahwaw, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.<br />Salthouse, T. A. (1998). Independence of age-related influences on cognitive abilities across the life span. Developemental Psychology, 34(5), 851-864.<br />McGrew, K. S., & Flanagan, D. P. (1998). The intelligence test desk reference (ITDR): Gf-Gc cross battery assessment. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.<br />McArdle, J. J., & Woodcock, R. W. (1998). Human Cognitive Abilities In Theory And Practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.<br />Horn, J. (1998). A basis for research on age differences in cognitive abilities. In J.J. McArdle, & R.W. Woodcock (Eds.), Human Cognitive Abilities in Theory and Practice (pp. 57-92). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.<br />Flanagan, D. P., & McGrew, K. S. (1998). Interpreting intelligence tests from contemporary Gf-Gc theory: Joint confirmatory factor analysis of the WJ-R and the KAIT in a non-white sample. Journal of School Psychology, 36(2), 151-182.<br />Cattell, R. B. (1998). Where is intelligence? Some answers from the triadic theory. In J.J. McArdle, & R.W. Woodcock (Eds.), Human cognitive abilities in theory and practice (pp. 29-38). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.<br />Carroll, J. B. (1998). Human cognitive abilities: A critique. In J.J. McArdle, & R.W. Woodcock (Eds.), Human cogntive abilities in theory and practice (pp. 5-24). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.<br />Bolen, L. M. (1998). Assessing cognitive abilities using the Woodcock Johnson . New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.<br />Binks, S. W., & Gold, J. M. (1998). Differential cognitive deficits in the neuropsychology of schizophrenia. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 12(1), 8-20.<br />Zimmerman, I. L., & Woo-Sam, J. M. (1997). Review of the criterion-related validity of the WISC-III: Therfirst five years. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 85, 531-546.<br />
  58. 58. Woodcock, R. W. (1997). The Woodcock Johnson Tests of Cognitive Ability Revised. New York, NY: Gillford Press .<br />Schultz, M. K. (1997). WISC-III and WJ-R tests of achievement: Concurrent validity and learning disability identification. The Journal of Speical Education, 31(3), 377-386.<br />McGrew, K. S., & Wrightson, W. (1997). The calculation of new and improved WISC-III subtest reliability, uniqueness, and general factor characteristic information through the use of data smoothing procedures. Psychology in the Schools, 34(3), 181-195.<br />McGrew, K. S., Flanagan, D. P., Keith, T. Z., & Vanderwood, M. (1997). Beyond g: The impact of Gf-Gc specific cognitive abilities research on the future use and interpretation of intelligence tests in the schools . School Psychology Review, 26(2), 189-210.<br />McGrew, K. S. (1997). Analysis of the major intelligence batteries according to a proposed comprehensive Gf-Gc framework. In D. P. <br />Flanagan, J. L. Genshaft, & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 151-179). New York: Guildord.<br />McArdle, J. J., & Woodcock, R. W. (1997). Expanding test-retest designs to include developmental time-lag components. Psychological Methods, 2(4), 403-435.<br />Konold, T. R., Glutting, J. J., & McDermott, P. A. (1997). The development and applied utility of a normative aptitude-achievement taxonomy for the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery-Revised. The Journal of Special Education, 31(2), 212-232.<br />Flanagan, D. P., & McGrew, K. S. (1997). A cross-battery approch to assessing and interpeting cognitive abilities: Narrrowing the gap between practice and science. In D. P. Flanagan, J. L. Genshaft, & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 314-325). New York: Guilford.<br />Flanagan, D. P., McGrew, K. S., Abramowitz, E., Lehner, L., Untiedt, S., Berger, D., & Armstrong, H. (1997). Improvement in academic screening instruments? A concurrent validity investigation of the K-FAST, MBA, and WRAT-3. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 15, 99-112.<br />Cameron, L. C., Ittenbach, R. F., McGrew, K. S., Harrison, P. L., Taylor, L. R., & Hwang, Y. R. (1997). Confirmatory factor analysis of the K-ABC with gifted referrals. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57(5), 823-840.<br />Laurent, J. (1996). Characteristics of the standard and supplemental batteries of the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Ability-Revised with a college sample. Paper presented at the annual convention of the National Association of School Psychologists, Atlanta, GA. <br />Woodcock, R. W., & Munoz-Sandoval, A. F. (1996). Batteria Woodcock-Munoz Pruebas de HabiliadadCognoscitiva - Revisada. Chicago, IL: Riverside Publishing.<br />Woodcock, R. W., & Munoz-Sandoval, A. F. (1996). Batteria Woodcock-Munoz Pruebas de Aprovechmiento - Revisada. Chicago, IL: Riverside Publishing.<br />Phelps, L. (1996). Discriminative validity of the WRAML with ADHD and LD children. Psychology in the Schools, 33, 5-12.<br />
  59. 59. Ochoa, S. H., Powell, M. P., & Robles-Pina, R. (1996). School psychologists&apos; assessment practices with bilingual and limited-english-proficient students. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 14, 250-275.<br />McGrew, K. S., & Knopik, S. N. (1996). The relationship between intra-cognitive scatter on the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery-Revised and school achievement. Journal of School Psychology, 34(4), 351-364.<br />McGrew, K. S., & Flanagan, D. P. (1996). The Wechsler performance scale IQ debate: Fluid intelligence (Gf) or visual processing (Gv)? NASP Communique, 24(6).<br />McGrew, K. S., Bruininks, R. H., & Johnson, D. R. (1996). Confirmatory factor analytic investigation of Greenspan&apos;s Model of personal Competence. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 100(5), 533-545.<br />Mardell-Czudnowski, C. (1996). A survey of assessment professionals in the US. School Psychology International, 17, 189-203.<br />Hicks, P., & Bolen, L. M. (1996). Review of the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery-Revised. Journal of School Psychology, 34(1), 93-102.<br />Flanagan, D. P., & McGrew, K. S. (1996). The Wechsler Performance Scale debate: Fluid Intelligence (Gf) or Visual Processing? NASP Communique, 24(6).<br />Canivez, G. L. (1996). Validity and diagnostic efficiency of the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test in reevaluating students with learning disability. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 14, 4-19.<br />Woodcock, R. W. (1995). Conceptualizations of intelligence and their implications for education. Paper presented at the AERA annual convention, San Francisco, CA. <br />Simpson, R. G., & Halpin, G. (1995). Psychometric effects of altering the ceiling criterion on the Passage Comprehension test of the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery-Revised. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55(4), 630-636.<br />Shull-Senn, S., Weatherly, M., Morgan, S.-K., & Bradley-Johnson, S. (1995). Stability reliability for elementary-age students on the Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational Battery--Revised (Achievment section) and the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievment. Psychology in the Schools, 32, 86-92.<br />Schuerholz, L. J., Harris, E. L., Baumgardner, T. L., & Reiss, A. L. (1995). An analysis of two discrepancy-based models and a processing-deficit approach in identifying learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28, 18-29.<br />Reed, M. T., & McCallum, S. (1995). Construct validity of the Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test (UNIT). Psychology in the Schools, 32, 277-290.<br />McGrew, K. S., & Murphy, S. R. (1995). Uniqueness and general factor characteristics of the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Ability-Revised. Journal of School Psychology, 33, 235-245.<br />McGrew, K. S., & Hessler, G. L. (1995). The relationship between the WJ-R Gf-Gc cognitive clusters and mathematics achievement across the life-span. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 13, 21-38.<br />
  60. 60. Hooper, S. R. (1995). Relationship between the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery and Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievment-Revised in children with psychiatric impairment. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 80, 1353-1354.<br />Flanagan, D. P., & McGrew, K. S. (1995). The field of intellectual assessment: A current perspective . The School Psychologist, 49(1).<br />Flanagan, D. P., & McGrew, K. S. (1995). A cross-battery approach to intelligence test interpretation. NASP Communique, 24(4).<br />Flanagan, D. P., & McGrew, K. S. (1995). Will you evolve or become extinct? Interpreting intelligence tests from modern Gf-Gc theory. 27th annual convention of the National Association of School Psychologists, Chicago, IL. <br />Flanagan, D. P., & Alfonso, V. C. (1995). A critical review of the technical charcteristics of new and recently revised intelligence tests for preschool children. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 13, 66-90.<br />Flanagan, D. P., Alfonso, V.C., Kaminer, T., & Rader, D. E. (1995). Incidence of basic concepts in the directions of new and revised American intelligence tests for preschool children. School Psychology International., 16, 345-364.<br />Bickley, P. G., Keith, T. Z., & Wolfle, L. M. (1995). The three-stratum theory of cognitive abilities: Test of the structure of intelligence across the life span. Intelligence, 20(3), 309-328.<br />Alfonso, V. C., & Flanagan, D. P. (1995). A critical review of the technical characteristics of new and recently revised intelligence tests for preschool children. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 13, 66-90.<br />Woodcock, R. W. (1994). Measures of fluid and crystallized intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Intelligence (pp. 452-456). New York: Macmillan.<br />Stinnett, T. A., Havey, J. M., & Oehler-Stinnett, J. (1994). Current test usage by practicing school psychologists: A national survey. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 12, 331-350.<br />McGrew, K. S., Murphy, S. R., & Knutson, D. J. (1994). The development and investigation of a graphic scoring system for obtaining derived scores for the WJ-R and other tests. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 12, 33-41.<br />McGrew, K. S. (1994). Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Ability--Revised. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The encyclopedia of intelligence (pp. 1152-1158). New York: Macmillan.<br />McGrew, K. S. (1994). Clinical interpretation of the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Ability Revised. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.<br />McGrew, K. S. (1994). The achievement content criticism of the WJ and WJ-R: A myth. NASP Communique, 22(8).<br />
  61. 61. McGhee, R., & Liberman, L. (1994). Gf-Gc Theory of human cognition: Differentiation of short-term auditory and visual memory factors. Psychology in the Schools, 31, 297-304.<br />Mather, N., & Roberts, R. (1994). Learning Disabilities: A field in danger of extinction? Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 9(1), 49-58.<br />Woodcock, R. W., & Munoz-Sandoval, A. F. (1993). An IRT approach to cross-language test equating and interpretation. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 9(3), 233-241.<br />Woodcock, R. W. (1993). An information processing view of Gf-Gc theory. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, Monograph Series: WJ R Monograph, 80-102.<br />Williams, J., Zolten, A. J., Rickert, V. I., & Spence, G. T. (1993). Use of nonverbal tests to screen for writing dysfluency in school-age children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 76, 803-809.<br />Sinnet, E. R., Rogg, K. L., Benton, S. L., Downey, R. G., & Whitfill, J. M. (1993). The Woodcock-Johnson Revised-Its factor structure. Educational and Psychological Measurement , 53, 763-769.<br />Schrank, F. A. (1993). Unique contributions of the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery-Revised to psychoeducational assessment. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, Monograph Series: WJ R Monograph, 71-79.<br />Schouten, P. G., & Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1993). Questions and concerns about the Miller Assessment for Preschoolers. Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 13, 7-28.<br />Meinhardt, M., Hibbett, C., Koller, J., & Busch, R. (1993). Comparison of the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery-Revised and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised with incarcerated adolescents. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, Monograph Series: WJ R Monograph, 64-70.<br />McGrew, K. S., Thurlow, M. L., & Spiegel, A. N. (1993). An investigation of the exclusion of students with disabilities in national data collection programs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(3), 339-352.<br />McGrew, K. S., & Knopik, S. N. (1993). The relationship between the WJ-R Gf-Gc cognitive clusters and writing achievement across the life-span. School Psychology Review, 22, 687-695.<br />McGrew, K. S. (1993). The relationship between the WJ-R Gf-Gc cognitive clusters and reading achievement across the lifespan. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, Monograph Series: WJ R Monograph, 39-53.<br />McGrew, K. S. (1993). Intelligence testing and Gf-Gc theory. NASP Communique, 21(5).<br />McGhee, R. L., & Buckhalt, J. A. (1993). Test review: Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery--Revised. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, WJ R Monograph, 136-149.<br />
  62. 62. Mather, N. (1993). Critical issues in the diagnosis of learning disabilities addressed by the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery-Revised. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, Monograph Series: WJ R Monograph, 103-122.<br />Klinge, V., & Dorsey, J. (1993). Correlates of the Woodcock-Johnson Reading Comprehension and Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test in a forensic psychiatric population. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 49, 593-598.<br />Kamphaus, R. W. (1993). Clinical assesment of children&apos;s intelligence. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacn.<br />Hoy, C., Gregg, N., Jagota, M., King, M., Moreland, C., & Manglitz, E. (1993). Relationship between the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised and the Woodcock-Johnson Test of Cognitive Ability-Revised among adults with learning disabilities in university and rehabilitation settings. <br />Journal of Psychoeduational Assessment, Monograph Series: WR R Monograph, 54-63.<br />Guerin, D. W., Griffin, J. R., Gottfried, A. W., & Christenson, G. N. (1993). Concurrent validity and screening efficiency of the Dyslexia Screener. Psychological Assessment, 5, 369-373.<br />Evans, J. H., Carlsen, R. N., & McGrew, K. S. (1993). Classification of exceptional students with the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery-Revised. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, Monograph Series: WJ R Monograph, 6-19.<br />Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor analytic studies. New York: Cambridge University Press.<br />Benton, S. L., Downey, R. G., Rogg, K. L., Sinnet, E. R., & Whitfill, J. M. (1993). The Woodcock-Johnson Revised- Its factor structure. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 763-768.<br />Sattler, J. M. (1992). Assessment of children. San Diego, CA: Jerome Sattler Publisher, Inc.<br />Olivarez, A., Palmer, D. J., & Guillemard, L. (1992). Predictive bias with referred and nonreferred black, hispanic, and white pupils. Learning Disability Quarterly, 15, 175-186.<br />McLeskey, J. (1992). Students with learning disabilities at primary, intermediate, and secondary grade levels: Identification and characteristics. Learing Disability Quarterly, 15, 13-19.<br />Mather, N., & Jaffe, L. E. (1992). Woodcock Johnson Psycho Educational Battery Revised: Recommendations & reports. Brandon, Vermont: Clinical Psychology Publishing Co.<br />Ittenbach, R., Spiegel, A., McGrew, K. S., & Bruininks, R. (1992). A confirmatory factor analysis of early childhood ability measures within a model of personal competence. Journal of School Psychology, 30, 307-323.<br />Harrington, R. G., Kimbrell, J., & Dai, X. (1992). The relationship between the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery-Revised (Early Development) and the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence-Revised. Psychology in the Schools, 29, 116-125.<br />
  63. 63. Dunn, C., McGhee, R., & Bryant, B. R. (1992). A validation study of the Detroit Tests of Learning Aptitude-Primary: Second Edition. Diagnostique, 17, 266-272.<br />McGrew, K. S., Werder, J. K., & Woodcock, R. W. (1991). The WJ-R technical manual. Allen, TX: DLM.<br />Mather, N., Vogel, S. A., Spodak, R. B., & McGrew, K. S. (1991). Use of the Woodcock-Johnson-Revised writing tests with students with learning disabilities. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 9, 296-307.<br />Mather, N. (1991). An instructional guide to the Woodcock Johnson Psycho Educational Battery Revised. Brandon, Vermont: Clinical Psychology Publishing Co.<br />Horn, J. L. (1991). Measurement of intellectual capabilities: A review of theory. In K. S. McGrew, J. K. Werder, & R. W. Woodcock (Eds.), WJ-R technical manual . Chicago: Riverside.<br />Ysseldyke, J. E. (1990). Goodness of fit of the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery-Revised to the Horn-Cattell GF-GC theory. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 8, 268-275.<br />Woodcock, R. W. (1990). Theoretical foundations of the WJ-R measures of cognitive ability. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 8, 231-258.<br />Tupper, D. E. (1990). Some observations on the use of the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Congitive Abilities in adults with head injury. Journal of Learning Abilities, 23(5), 306-310.<br />Reschly, D. J. (1990). Found: Our intelligences: What do they mean? Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 8(259-267).<br />Merrell, K. W. (1990). Differentiating low achieving students and students with learning disabilities: An examination of prerformances on the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery. Journal of Special Education, 24, 296-305.<br />Mather, N., & Healey, W. C. (1990). Deposing aptitude-achievement discrepancy as the imperial criterion for learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 1 (2), 40-48.<br />Kaufman, A. S. (1990). Assessing adolescent and adult intelligence. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.<br />Cuenin, L. H. (1990). Use of the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational battery with learning disabled adults. Learning Disability Focus, 5(2), 119-123.<br />Carroll, J. B. (1990). Estimating item and ability parameters in homogeneous tests with the person characteristics function. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14, 109-125.<br />Bracken, B. A., & Fagan, T. K. (1990). Intelligence: Theories and practice [Special Issue]. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 8.<br />Woodcock, R. W., & Johnson, M. B. (1989). Woodcock Johnson Psycho Educational Battery-Revised. Chicago: Riverside.<br />
  64. 64. Powers, A. D. (1989). Fourth edition of the Stanford-Binet Intellgence Scale and the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement: criterion validity study. Dissertation Abstracts International, 50(4), 907-A.<br />Horn, J. L. (1989). Measurement of intellectual capabilities: A review of theory. In K. S. McGrew, J. K. Werder, & R. W. Woodcock (Eds), WJ R technical manual (pp. 197-245). Chicago, IL: Riverside.<br />Dettenmaier, L. (1989). Use of intelligence and achievement in the identification of learning disability subtypes. Dissertation Abstracts International, 50(5), 1271-A.<br />Araujo, R. L. (1989). Cofirmatory factor analysis of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale: Fourth Edition and the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abilities with the standardization samples. Dissertation Abstracts International, 50(5), 2144-B.<br />Strein, W. (1988). Theoretical analysis of the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Ability: A second look. Journal of School Psychology, 21-25.<br />Rosso, M., & Phelps, L. (1988). Factor analysis of the Woodcock-Johnson with conduct disordered adolescents. Psychology in the Schools, 25, 105-110.<br />McGrew, K. S., & Pehl, J. (1988). Prediction of future achievement by the Woodcock Johnson Psychoeducational Battery and the WISC-R. Journal of School Psychology, 26, 275-281.<br />Kaufman, A. S., & O&apos;Neal, M. (1988). Factor structure of the Woodcock-Johnson cognitive subtests from preschool to adulthood. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 6, 35-48.<br />Horn, J. L. (1988). Thinking about human abilities. In J. R. Nesselroade (Ed.), Handbook of multivariate psychology (pp. 645-685). New York: Academic Press.<br />Woodcock, R. W. (1987). Who should use the Woodcock-Johnson: A response from Richard Woodcock. NASP Communique, 15(8), 4.<br />McGrew, K. S. (1987). A multivariate analysis of the Wechsler/Woodcock Johnson discrepancy controversy. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 5, 49-60.<br />McGrew, K. S. (1987). Exploratory factor analysis of the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Ability. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 5, 200-216.<br />Hessler, G. L. (1987). Educational issues surrounding severe discrepancy. Learning Disabilities Research, 3(1), 43-49.<br />McGrew, K. S. (1986). A review of the differential predictive validity of the Woodcock-Johnson Scholastic Aptitude clusters. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 4, 307-317.<br />McGrew, K. S. (1986). Clinical interpretation of the Woodcock Johnson Tests of Cognitive Ability. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.<br />
  65. 65. Bracken, B. A. (1986). Incidence of basic concepts in the directions of five commonly used American test of intelligence. School Psychology International, 7, 1-10.<br />Woodcock, R. W. (1985). DLM Assessment Service Bulletin #5: Correction for regression when using standard scores. 4. <br />Phelps, L., Rosso, M., & Falasco, S. L. (1985). Multiple regression data using the WISC-R and the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Ability. Psychology in the Schools, 22, 46-49.<br />McGrew, K. S., & Woodcock, R. W. (1985). Subtest norms for the WJ SIB Assessment System. Allen, TX: DLM/Teaching Resources.<br />McGrew, K. S. (1985). Investigation of the verbal/nonverbal structure of the Woodcock-Johnson: Implications for subtest interpretation and comparisons with the Wechsler Scale . Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 3, 65-71.<br />Laughon, P., & Torgesen, J. K. (1985). Effects of alternate testing procedures on two subtests of the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery. Psychology in the Schools, 22, 160-163.<br />Kaufman, A. S. (1985). Review of the Woodcock-Johnson Psyco-Educational Battery. In J. F. Mitchell (Eds), The ninth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 1762-1765). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements, University of Nebraska Press.<br />Cummings, J. (1985). Review of the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery. In J. F. Mitchell (Eds), The ninth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 1759-1762). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institution of Mental Measurements, University of Nebraska Press.<br />Woodcock, R. W.Some background regarding the design of the Woodcock-Johnson. 3. <br />Woodcock, R. W. (1984). A response to some questions raised about the Woodcock-Johnson: II. Efficacy of the aptitude clusters. School Psychology Review, 13, 355-362.<br />Woodcock, R. W. (1984). A response to some questions raised about the Woodcock-Johnson: I. The mean score discrepancy issue. School Psychology Review, 13, 342-354.<br />Woodcock, R. W. (1984). Bateria Woodcock PsicoEducativa en Espanol. Chicago: Riverside.<br />Thompson, P., & Brassard, M. (1984). Validity of the Woodcock-Johnson tests of cognitive ability: A comparison with the WISC-R in LD and normal elementary students. Journal of School Psychology, 22, 201-208.<br />Thompson, P., & Brassard, M. (1984). Cummings soft on Woodcock-Johnson . School Psychology Review, 12(1), 41-44.<br />Thompson, P., & Brassard, M. (1984). Cummings and Moscato soft on Woodcock-Johnson. School Psycology Review, 13, 41-44.<br />
  66. 66. McGrew, K. S. (1984). Normative-based guides for subtest profile interpretation of the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Ability. Journal of Psychoducational Assessment, 2, 141-148.<br />McGrew, K. S. (1984). An analysis of the influence of the Quantitative Concepts subtest in the Woodcock-Johnson Scholastic Aptitude Clusters. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 2, 325-332.<br />Marston, D., & Ysseldyke, J. (1984). Concerns in interpreting subtest scatter on the tests of cognitive ability from the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17(10), 588-591.<br />Hall, R. J., Reeve, R. E., & Zakreski, J. R. (1984). Validity of the Woodcock-Johnson tests of acheivement for learning-disabled students. Journal of School Psychology, 22, 193-200.<br />Cummings, J., & Moscato, E. (1984). Research on the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Pattery: Implications for practice and future investigations. School Psychology Review, 13(1), 33-40.<br />Cummings, J., & Moscato, E. (1984). Research of the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery: Implications for practice and future investigation. School Psychology Review, 13, 33-40.<br />Cummings, J., & Moscato, E. (1984). Reply to Thompson and Brassard. School Psychology Review, 13, 45-58.<br />Bruininks, R., Woodcock, R., Hill, B., & Weatherman, R. (1984). Scales of Independent Behavior: Woodcock Johnson Psycho Educational Battery: Part Four. Chicago: Riverside.<br />Breen, M. J. (1984). The temporal stability of the Woodcock-Johnson tests of cognitive ability for elementary-aged and learning-disabled children. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 3, 257-261.<br />Breen, M. J. (1984). An analysis of Wide Range Achievement Test and Woodcock-Johnson achievement grade and standard scores for learning disabled and nonreferred regular students. Educational and Psychological Research, 4(3).<br />Breen, M., Lehman, J., & Carlson, M. (1984). Achievement correlates of the Woodcock-Johnson reading and mathematics subtests, KeyMath, and Woodcock reading in an elementary aged learning disabled population. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 258-261.<br />Bracken, B., Prasse, D., & Breen, M. (1984). Concurrent validity of the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery with regular and learning disabled children. Journal of School Psychology, 22, 185-192.<br />Arffa, S., Rider, L., & Cummings, J. (1984). A validity study of the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery and the Stanford-Binet with black preschool children. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 2, 73-77.<br />McGrew, K. S. (1983). Comparison of the WISC-R and Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Ability. Journal of School Psychology, 21, 271-276.<br />
  67. 67. The Ninth Mental Measurements Yearbook. (1983). T. Kaufman Review of the Woodcock Johnson Psycho Eudcational Battery, in J.F. Mitchell . University of Nebraska Press.<br />Kampwirth, T. (1983). Problems in the use of the Woodcock-Johnson suppressors. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 1, 337-339.<br />Cummings, J., & Sanville, D. (1983). Concurrent validity of the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Ability with the WISC-R: EMR children. Psychology in the Schools, 20, 298-303.<br />Breen, M. J. (1983). A correlation analysis between the PPVT-R and the Woodcock-Johnson achievement cluster scores for nonreferred and regular education and learning disabled students. Psychology in the Schools, 20, 259-297.<br />Breen, M. J. (1983). Comparing the Woodcock-Johnson achievement cluster scores and Wide Range Achievement Test in a learning disabled and irregular education population. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 39, 86-90.<br />Bohline, D. (1983). Intellectual characteristics of attention deficit disordered children as measured by two tests of cognitive ability. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, United States International University, San Diego, CA.<br />Woodcock, R. W. (1982). Interpretation of the rasch ability and difficulty scales for educational purposes. 1-11.<br />Woodcock, R. W. (1982). Bateria Woodcock Psico-Educativa en Espanol. Allan, TX: DLM.<br />Shinn, M., Algozzine, B., Marston, D., & Ysseldyke, J. (1982). A theoretical analysis of the performance of learning disabled students on the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 15, 221-226.<br />McGue, M., Shinn, M., & Ysseldyke, J. (1982). Use of the cluster scores on the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery with learning disabled students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 274-287.<br />Hessler, G. L. (1982). Use and interpretation of the Woodcock Johnson Psycho Educational Battery. Chicago: Riverside.<br />Cummings, J. (1982). Interpreting functioning levels: Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery. Psychological Reports, 50, 1167-1171.<br />Breen, M. J., & Hehman, J. (1982). Concurrnt validity of the Woodcock-Johnson mathematics and reading subtests with a middle school learning disabled population. Educational and Psychological Research, 2 , 173-179.<br />Ysseldyke, J. E., Algozzine, B., & Shinn, M. (1981). Validity of the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery for learning disabled youngsters. Learning Disability Quarterly, 4, 244-249.<br />Ysseldyke, J., Shinn, M. R., & Epps, S. (1980). A comparison of the WISC-R and the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Ability. Psychology in the Schools, 18, 15-19.<br />
  68. 68. Shinn, M., Algozzine, B., Martston, D., & Ysseldyke, J. (1980). Review of Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery. School Psychology International, 1(4), 20-22.<br />Marston, D. (1980). Research Report #46: An analysis of subtest scatter on the tests of cognitive ability fron the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery. 10.<br />Reeve, R. E., Hall, R. J., & Zakreski, R. S. (1979). The Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Ability: Concurrent validity with the WISC-R. Learning Disability Quarterly, 2, 63-69.<br />McGue, M., Shinn, M., & Ysseldyke, J. (1979). Validity of the Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational Battery with learning disabled students (Research Report No. 15). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Institute of Research on Learning Disabilities.<br />Woodcock, R. W., & Johnson, M. B. (1978). Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery. Hingham, MA: Teaching Resources.<br />Woodcock, R. W. (1978). Development and standardization of the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery. Hingham, MA: Teaching Resources.<br />Woodcock, R. W., & Johnson, M. B. (1977). Woodcock Johnson Psycho EducationalBattery. Chicago: Riverside.<br />
  69. 69. (McGrew, 1997) – Integrated Cattell-Horn and Cattell Gf-Gc Model <br />
  70. 70. (1997)<br />
  71. 71. (1997)<br />
  72. 72. (1997)<br />
  73. 73. (1997)<br />Origin of combined Cattell-Horn and Carroll models into Integrated Gf-Gc model framework..later to be called Cattell-Horn-Carroll Theory (CHC)<br />
  74. 74. Carroll and Cattell-Horn Model Comparison<br />g<br />Gf<br />Gy<br />Gv<br />Gs<br />Gt<br />Gc<br />Gr<br />Gu<br />Carroll<br />Broad Retrieval<br />Ability<br />Broad Cognitive<br />Speediness<br />Broad Auditory<br />Perception<br />Fluid <br />Intelligence<br />Gen. Memory<br />& Learning<br />Dec/Reaction<br />Time/Speed<br />Broad Visual<br />Perception<br />Crystallized <br />Intelligence<br />CDS<br />Gf<br />Gq<br />Gsm<br />Gv<br />Ga<br />Gs<br />Grw<br />Gc<br />Glr<br />Cattell-Horn<br />Correct<br />Decision Speed<br />Crystallized <br />Intelligence<br />Fluid <br />Intelligence<br />Quantitative<br />Knowledge<br />Visual <br />Processing<br />Auditory<br />Processing<br />Processing<br />Speed<br />Short-Term<br />Memory<br />Long-Term<br />Retrieval<br />Reading/<br />Writing<br />
  75. 75. (McGrew, 1997) – Integrated Cattell-Horn and Cattell Gf-Gc Model <br />
  76. 76. T2<br />T3<br />T4<br />T5<br />T6<br />T7<br />T8<br />T9<br />T1<br />T12<br />T10<br />T11<br />PMA1<br />PMA2<br />PMA3<br />PMA4<br />g ?<br />…etc<br />G1<br />G2<br />G3<br />…etc<br />…etc<br />Stratum III<br />Stratum II<br />Stratum I<br />Consensus Cattell-Horn-Carroll Hierarchical Three-Stratum Model <br />(T# = designates different test measures)<br />(PMA# = different “primary mental ability”)<br />
  77. 77. Note…details from this period (E) not dealt with in current slide show<br />
  78. 78. McGrew, K. S. (2005). The Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory of cognitive abilities: Past, present and future. In D. Flanagan, & Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (p.136-202). New York: Guilford Press.<br />McGrew, K. (2009). Editorial: CHC theory and the human cognitive abilities project: Standing on the shoulders of the giants of psychometric intelligence research, Intelligence, 37, 1-10.<br />
  79. 79. g<br />T2<br />T3<br />T4<br />T5<br />T6<br />T7<br />T8<br />T9<br />T1<br />T12<br />T10<br />T11<br />T2<br />T3<br />T4<br />T5<br />T6<br />T7<br />T8<br />T9<br />T1<br />T12<br />T10<br />T11<br />T2<br />T3<br />T4<br />T5<br />T6<br />T7<br />T8<br />T9<br />T1<br />T12<br />T10<br />T11<br />T2<br />T3<br />T4<br />T5<br />T6<br />T7<br />T8<br />T9<br />T1<br />T12<br />T10<br />T11<br />T2<br />T3<br />T4<br />T5<br />T6<br />T7<br />T8<br />T9<br />T1<br />T12<br />T10<br />T11<br />PMA1<br />PMA2<br />PMA3<br />PMA4<br />PMA1<br />PMA2<br />PMA3<br />PMA4<br />PMA1<br />PMA2<br />PMA3<br />PMA4<br />PMA1<br />PMA2<br />PMA3<br />PMA4<br />…etc<br />(1b) Thurston’s Multiple Factor (Primary Mental Abilities) Model<br />…etc<br />(1a) Spearman’s general Factor model<br />G1<br />G2<br />G3<br />…etc<br />…etc<br />…etc<br />g ?<br />…etc<br />G1<br />G2<br />G3<br />…etc<br />…etc<br />(1e) Consensus Cattell-Horn-Carroll Hierarchical Three-Stratum Model <br />Summary of evolution of psychometric intelligence theories<br />Arrows from g to each test<br />(rectangle) have been omitted for readability<br />Stratum III<br />g<br />G1<br />Stratum II<br />G2<br />…etc<br />Stratum I<br />…etc<br />…etc<br />(1d) Carroll’s Schmid-Leiman Hierarchical Three-Stratum Model<br />(1c) Cattell-Horn Gf-Gc Hierarchical Model<br />Stratum III<br />Note: Circles represent<br />latent factors. Squares represent manifest measures (tests; T1..). Single-headed path arrows designate factor loadings. Double headed arrows designate latent factor correlations<br />Stratum II<br />Stratum I<br />Figure 1: Major stages in the evolution of psychometric theories from Spearman’s g to Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory<br />
  80. 80.
  81. 81. CHC-IQ test design bandwagon begins: Other major IQ tests are revised and place the CHC model as the center of each batteries design blueprint. <br />SB5 (Roid, 2003) CHC-based revision includes composite scores for 5 broad abilities (Gf, Gc, Gq, Gsm, Gv), via verbal and nonverbal tests. <br />Kaufman & Kaufman (2004) revise the KABC-II with a dual theoretical model (Luria-Das and CHC) blueprint, but with the CHC model recommended as the primary organizational structure to use. <br />Elliott (2007) revises the Differential Abilities Scales--II (DAS-II) with a heavy CHC influence.<br />WISC-IV (2003) and WAIS-IV (2008), although not explicitly based on CHC theory, were implicitly influenced by CHC theory.<br />
  82. 82. WJ III<br />(2001)<br />CHC IQ test bandwagon<br />SB-V<br />(2003)<br />KABC-II<br />(2004)<br />DAS-II<br />(2007)<br />WISC-IV<br />(2003)<br />WAIS-IV<br />(2008)<br />
  83. 83. (2003)<br />(2001; 2007)<br />(2004)<br />(2007)<br />
  84. 84. National Research Council, Committee on Disability Determination for Mental Retardation(2002). In D. J. Reschly, T. G. Meters, & C. R. Hartel (Eds.), Mental retardation: Determining eligibility for Social Security benefits. Washington, DC: National Academy Press<br />In 2002, a national panel of MR<br />experts recognized the clear CHC movement in the design and revision of IQ tests used to identify MR/ID. More importantly, there was a recognition of a movement (based on solid psychometric theory/research) on part scores and less reliance on a g-based full scale total composite IQ score<br />
  85. 85. AAIDD 11th edition (green manual) published 2010<br />“Stuck on g”<br />Quotes from manual (emphasis via underline added by K. McGrew)<br />Intellectual disability is characterized by significant limitations both in intellectual functioning and in adaptive behavior as expressed in conceptual, social and practical adaptive skills. This disability originates before age 18 (p. 5)<br />Intelligence is a general mental ability (p.31)<br />Intelligence is a single trait (p.32).<br />A single dimension of intelligence continues to garner the most support within the scientific community…Thus, until such measures of multiple intelligences can be assessed reliably and validly, it is the position of AAIDD that intellectual functioning…is best conceptualized and captured by a general factor of intelligence (g) (p, 34)<br />
  86. 86. Not to be covered in current presentation<br />National MR/ID expert panel recognized CHC theory and trend toward CHC-based IQ tests<br />2010 <br />manual<br />2002<br />WAIS-IV<br />(2008)<br />WISC-IV<br />(2003)<br />KABC-II<br />(2004)<br />SB-V<br />(2003)<br />DAS-II<br />(2007)<br />Contemporary Psychometric Intelligence Theory—AAIDD MR Def. Gap<br />WJ III<br />(2001)<br />
  87. 87. Thecurrent AAIDD ID definition is still “stuck on g” (general intelligence)…and continues to be out of step with contemporary psychometric intelligence theory. A major intelligence theory-- AAIDD ID definition gap exists. This gap has potentially serious consequences for individuals with disabilities<br />Despite the widespread acceptance and recognition of the contemporary CHC (aka Extended Gf-Gc) theory of intelligence by intelligence scholars, a 2002 national panel of MR/ID experts, and the clear movement in applied IQ test development to test batteries grounded in the CHC framework, AAIDD continues to be “stuck on g”<br />The AAIDD definition of intelligence is out-of-date. A major intelligence theory—AAIDD ID definition gap exists<br />Contemporary intelligence scholars, experts, and test developers recognize that although g (general intelligence) may exist at the apex of the CHC taxonomy of human cognitive abilities, there are broad (stratum II) abilities that are important (i.e., have differential validities) that can be assessed and, when interpreted appropriately, can provide a more valid and multidimensional picture of an individuals intellectual functioning.<br />AAIDD’s continued use of the statement (with regard to measurement of multiple cognitive abilities) that “until such measures of multiple intelligences can be assessed reliably and validly, it is the position of AAIDD that intellectual functioning…is best conceptualized and captured by a general factor of intelligence” is simply wrong! Reliable and valid measures of the broad CHC ability domains exist and have been published in most intelligence batteries published from 1989 to 2008. <br />The AAIDD g-position is at odds with the known heterogeneity of abilities within the ID (and general) population and fails to recognize that although a g-based total composite score may often represent the best single index of a person’s intellectual functioning, often the g-based composite score may lead to inaccurate conclusions regarding a person’s intellectual functioning and in these cases more attention should be focused on the component part scores. The stuck on g position has the potential to result in serious consequences for individuals, such as denial of special education services; denial of SS benefits, and unjust execution as in “Atkins MR/ID death penalty cases”. <br />Contemporary Psychometric Intelligence Theory—AAIDD ID Def. Gap<br />
  88. 88. Summary Continuum of Progress: Intelligence Theories and Test Batteries<br /> General<br />Ability (g)<br />Dichotomous<br />Abilities<br />Multiple<br />Cognitive Abilities<br />(Incomplete; not implicitly<br />or explicitly CHC-organized<br />Multiple<br />Cognitive Abilities<br />(Incomplete; implicitly<br />or explicitly CHC-organized<br />Multiple<br />Cognitive Abilities<br />(“Complete”; implicitly<br />or explicitly CHC-organized<br />AAIDD MR intelligence g focus definition<br />2010<br />g<br />Broad Abilities <br />Spearman<br />Original Gf-Gc<br />Simultaneous-<br />Successive<br />Thurstone PMAs<br />PASS<br />(Planning, Attention,<br />Simultaneous, Successive)<br />Cattell-Horn Carroll (CHC)<br />Theory of Cognitive Abilities<br />AAIDD MR Def. /IQ Theory Gap<br />Primary Theories<br />(Neuropsych. Psychometric)<br />WJ III (2001)<br />WJ III NU (2005)<br />WJ (1977)<br />WJ-R (1989)<br />Stanford-<br />Binet LM<br />(1937; 1960; <br />1972)<br />SB-IV (1986)<br />SB-V(2003)<br />Note: This is an adaptation (9-29-09) by Kevin McGrew of Figure 2.1 in Flanagan, McGrew & Ortiz (2000).<br />Bold font designates most current version of battery.<br />Bold Italic font designates batteries with adult norms.<br />Placement of WISC-IV/WAIS-IV recognizes that although only providing four broad composite scores, the revisions implicitly incorporated aspects of CHC theory<br />WJ III NU reflects a Normative Update to the WJ III norms without changes to the tests<br />WPPSI-R (1989)<br />WISC-R (1974)<br />W-B (1939; 1946)<br />WAIS-R (1981)<br />WPPSI-III (2002)<br />WISC-III 1991)<br />WAIS-III (1997)<br />Applied IQ Batteries<br />WISC-IV (2003)<br />WAIS-IV (2008)<br />K-ABC (1983)<br />KAIT (1993)<br />KABC-II (2004)<br />CAS (1997)<br />DAS (1990)<br />DAS-II (2007)<br />

×