New directions in neuropsychological assessment: Augmenting neuropsychological assessment with CHC cognitive measures

New directions in neuropsychological assessment: Augmenting neuropsychological assessment with CHC cognitive measures
Kevin S. McGrew, PhD
Woodcock-Muñoz Foundation
16th Annual APS College of Clinical Neuropsychologists Conference
From East to West: New directions in Neuropsychology
30 September - 2 October 2010
Notre Dame University, Fremantle, Western Australia

Stay informed

Overview of today’s presentation
Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory of cognitive ability is the consensus taxonomy of cognitive abilities – Brief
Neuropsychological vs psychometric approaches – conceptual model differences
Mapping CHC model to neuropsychological models
CHC analysis of neuropsychological measures – illustrative examples

“In an ever-changing world, psychological testing remains the flagship of applied psychology”
Embretson, S. E. (1996). The new rules of measurement.
Psychological Assessment, 8 (4), 341-349.

Three things (or major steps) completed that have resulted in the intelligence model(s) to be presented today

Things 1 and 2:
Will be covered quickly to provide context and background for primary content of today – Thing 3
These “things” will be covered in more detail in my Saturday keynote presentation

The Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory of cognitive
abilities is the contemporary consensus
psychometric model of the structure of human intelligence
The CHC Timeline Project (and detailed information re: CHC theory/model)can be found at IQ’s Corner blog
www.iqscorner.com

g
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T1
T12
T10
T11
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T1
T12
T10
T11
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T1
T12
T10
T11
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T1
T12
T10
T11
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T1
T12
T10
T11
PMA1
PMA2
PMA3
PMA4
PMA1
PMA2
PMA3
PMA4
PMA1
PMA2
PMA3
PMA4
PMA1
PMA2
PMA3
PMA4
…etc
(1b) Thurston’s Multiple Factor (Primary Mental Abilities) Model
…etc
(1a) Spearman’s general Factor model
G1
G2
G3
…etc
…etc
…etc
g ?
…etc
G1
G2
G3
…etc
…etc
(1e) Consensus Cattell-Horn-Carroll Hierarchical Three-Stratum Model
Arrows from g to each test
(rectangle) have been omitted for readability
Stratum III
g
G1
Stratum II
G2
…etc
Stratum I
…etc
…etc
(1d) Carroll’s Schmid-Leiman Hierarchical Three-Stratum Model
(1c) Cattell-Horn Gf-Gc Hierarchical Model
Stratum III
Note: Circles represent
latent factors. Squares represent manifest measures (tests; T1..). Single-headed path arrows designate factor loadings. Double headed arrows designate latent factor correlations
Stratum II
Stratum I
Figure 1: Major stages in the evolution of psychometric theories from Spearman’s g to Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory

CHC theory has entered the mainstream neuropsychological assessment literature

A landmark event in understanding the structure of human cognitive abilities - 1993

THE SCOPE OF CARROLL’S FACTOR ANALYTIC REVIEW
Reviewed factor analytic research of the past 50-60 years
Includes nearly all of the more important and classic factor analytic investigations
Started with 1,500 references
Final pool of 461 data sets that meet specific criteria
Reanalyzed all or nearly all of the data sets
Used exploratory methods in order to “let the data speak for themselves”

The verdict is unanimous re: the importance of Carroll’s (1993) work
Richard Snow (1993):
“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.”
Burns (1994):
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).

John Horn (1998):
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).
Arthur Jensen (2004):
“…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!’’
“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).

...most disciplines have a common set of terms and definitions (i.e., a standard nomenclature) that facilitates communication among professionals and guards against misinterpretations. In chemistry, this standard nomenclature is reflected in the ‘Table of Periodic Elements’. Carroll (1993a) has provided an analogous table for intelligence…..
(Flanagan & McGrew, 1998)

T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T1
T12
T10
T11
PMA1
PMA2
PMA3
PMA4
g ?
…etc
G1
G2
G3
…etc
…etc
CHC as the consensus psychometric model of intelligence
Because the Carroll model is largely consistent with the model originally proposed by Cattell (1971), McGrew (2009) has proposed an integration of the two models which he calls the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (C-H-C) Integration model….Because of the inclusiveness of this model, it is becoming the standard typology for human ability. It is certainly the culmination of exploratory factor analysis.
The Science of Intelligence
(Doug Detterman, 2010; book manuscript in preparation)

T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T1
T12
T10
T11
PMA1
PMA2
PMA3
PMA4
g ?
…etc
G1
G2
G3
…etc
…etc
“The Cattell–Horn–Carroll (CHC) theory of cognitive abilities is the best validated model of human cognitive abilities”
[Ackerman, P. L. & Lohman D. F. (2006). Individual differences in cognitive functions. In P. A. Alexander, P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology, 2nd edition (pp. 139-161). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.]

T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T1
T12
T10
T11
PMA1
PMA2
PMA3
PMA4
g ?
…etc
G1
G2
G3
…etc
…etc
A significant number of Australian intelligence scholars have framed (and/or continue to frame) their research as per the extended Gf-Gc (aka. CHC) model of intelligence. Many have made foundational contributions to building the model.
N. R. Burns
T. Nettlebeck
L. Stankov
R. Roberts
S. Bowden

Importance Of Classification
Taxonomies In All Sciences
Classification is arguably one of the most central and generic of all our conceptual exercises…without classification, there could be no advanced conceptualization, reasoning, language, data analysis, or for that matter, social science research (K.D. Bailey, 1994).
A specialized science of classification of empirical entities known astaxonomy(Bailey, 1994; Prentky, 1994) is ubiquitous in all fields of study because it guides our search for information or truth.

T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T1
T12
T10
T11
PMA1
PMA2
PMA3
PMA4
Arrows from g to each test
(rectangle) have been omitted for readability
Stratum III
g
G1
Stratum II
G2
…etc
Stratum I
…etc
…etc
Carroll’s Schmid-Leiman Hierarchical Three-Stratum Model
(T# = designates different test measures)
(PMA# = different “primary mental ability”)

CARROLL’S (1993) THREE-STRATUM THEORY OF COGNITIVE ABILITIES
69 narrow abilities found in data sets analyzed by Carroll
g
General
Intelligence
General
(Stratum III)
Gf
Gc
Gy
Gv
Gu
Gr
Gs
Gt
Broad
(Stratum II)
Processing
Speed (RT
Decision
Speed)
General
Memory &
Learning
Broad
Auditory
Perception
Broad
Retrieval
Ability
Broad
Cognitive
Speediness
Broad
Visual
Perception
Fluid
Intelligence
Crystallized
Intelligence
Narrow
(Stratum I)
-Cognitive abilities vary by degree of generality or breadth (three strata – general, broad, narrow)
General intelligence or g exists, and different cognitive abilities are more related (correlated) with g than others

Gf
Broad
RG
RP
Narrow
I
RQ
RE
CHC theory classifies abilities according to three levels or strata
g
Table of CHC broad and narrow abilities and their definitions can be found at www.IAPsych.com
General
RG = Gen Sequential (deductive) Reasoning
I = Induction
RQ = Quantitative Reasoning
RP = Piagetian Reasoning
RE = Speed of Reasoning

Carroll and Cattell-Horn Model Comparison
g
Gf
Gy
Gv
Gs
Gt
Gc
Gr
Gu
Carroll
Broad Retrieval
Ability
Broad Cognitive
Speediness
Broad Auditory
Perception
Fluid
Intelligence
Gen. Memory
& Learning
Dec/Reaction
Time/Speed
Broad Visual
Perception
Crystallized
Intelligence
CDS
Gf
Gq
Gsm
Gv
Ga
Gs
Grw
Gc
Glr
Cattell-Horn
Correct
Decision Speed
Crystallized
Intelligence
Fluid
Intelligence
Quantitative
Knowledge
Visual
Processing
Auditory
Processing
Processing
Speed
Short-Term
Memory
Long-Term
Retrieval
Reading/
Writing

Contemporary psychometric research has converged on
the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory of cognitive abilities as the consensus working taxonomy of human intelligence
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.

CHC theory “has formed the foundation
for most contemporary IQ tests” (Kaufman, 2009, p. 91)
WJ-R (1989) and WJ III (2001) – 7- 9 broad Gf-Gc abilities measured
SB5 (2003) CHC-based revision includes composite scores for 5 broad abilities (Gf, Gc, Gq, Gsm, Gv), via verbal and nonverbal tests.
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.
Elliott (2007) revises the Differential Abilities Scales--II (DAS-II) with a heavy CHC influence.
WISC-IV(2003) and WAIS-IV(2008), although not explicitly based on CHC theory, were implicitly influenced by CHC theory.

Table of broad and narrow CHC abilities and definitions is included in your
handout packet
Also available at: www.iapsych.com/aus1b.pdf

g
McGrew Table of CHC Gf-Gc Cognitive Elements
(© Kevin McGrew 3-25-99; 9-13-10 Rev.)
KM
A3
Gq
LD
K0
VL
LS
K1
K2
LA
A5
CM
OP
MY
KL
Gc
Acquired Knowledge
RC
SG
V
RD
CZ
RS
WA
EU
Grw
PC
US
UR
U3
UM
UK
UL
U1/9
U8
U6
U5
UA/T/U
UP
Ga
I
RG
RP
RE
RQ
Gf
Cognitive Operations
Vz
SR
MV
CS
SS
CF
PI
LE
IL
PN
IM
Gv
M6
MA
L0
MM
FE
FI
FF
FX
FO
SP
OP
FW
NA
FA
Glr
Gsm
MS
MW
R9
N
P
Gs
Cognitive Efficiency
Other/new
R1
R2
R4
R7
Gt

??? Metrics…skeptics….scales and tales
(aka., voodoo psychometrics)

Thing 3 – attempt to integrate Thing 1 and Thing 2 with neuropsychological
assessment models

Psychometric vs. neuropsychological conception/model assessment gap
“It is notable that there is a gap between neuropsychological measures and evolving conceptualizations of intelligence. That is, for as seemingly related as the instruments and concepts are, they have strikingly different historical backgrounds.”
(Hoelzle, 2008)

Psychometric vs. neuropsychological assessment gap: Select reasons why (Hoelzle, 2008)
Singular concept of intelligence (g) has hadminimal clinical utilityin neuropsychological assessment
NP assessment has been traditionally non-theoretical---popular models of intelligence and cognitive abilities have been derived via statistical procedures
NP measures traditionally selected on ability to differentiate between neurological and normal conditions---psychometric frameworks derived with factor analytic techniques to synthesize theories that were similarly derived

Verticalfactor analysis (trait) model
Gf
Gc
Glr
G..
Gsm
Gv
etc
Attn
Psychometric approaches have had primary (but not sole) focus/goal on internal/structural validity within each construct domain --- Vertical models

Horizontalmultiple regression (aptitude/functional/pragmatic) model
Criterion DVs
Gf
Gc
Glr
G..
Gsm
Gv
etc
Attn
TBI ?
Brain Area/function
Neuropsychological approaches have had primary (but not sole) focus/goal on external/predictive (Dx) validity – Horizontal models
Result has been many NP measures are mixture measures of multiple CHC domain abilities (which abilities and in what amount [weighting] best predict criterion variables?)

??? Metrics…skeptics….scales and tales
(aka., voodoo psychometrics)

The First Commandment of Neuropsychological Assessment
"If one writes a book on neuropsychological assessment, thou shall not write a book that is less than 3 inches thick or less than 3 lbs in weight“ (McGrew, August 13, 2010)

Arm-chair factor analysis of select neuropsychological assessment model domains
Strauss et al. (2006)
Lezak et al. (2004)
Rabin et al. (2005)
Shaghnessy & O’Connor (2009)
Miller (2010)
Flanagan et al. (2010)

Lets look at the pieces one by one – blow them up

Arm-chair factor analysis of neuropsych. assessment domains [and CHC construct mapping] (K. McGrew; 8-18-10) [I of 3]
g
Gf
Gc
Grw
Gq

Gv
Ga
Gsm
Glr

Gs
Gsm
AC
??
Gp
Gps
Go
Gh
Gk

CHC analysis of select commonly used neuropsychological tests and test batteries
This is preliminary “work in progress”
I am NOT a neuropsychologist – looking for feedback and expertise to refine
Goal is to demonstrate/model a “mode of thinking & process” for NP’s to apply CHC theory to their assessments
Time constraints makes it impossible to cover all the major NP tests and batteries commonly used.

What does the WAIS-IV measure? CHC analysis and beyond
Kevin S. McGrew, PhD.
Educational & School Psychologist
Director
Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP)

Kevin McGrew completed exploratory analysis of the single grand WAIS-IV subtest correlation matrix reported in Table 5.1 in WAIS-IV TM. Analyses included:
EFA – Exploratory factor analysis (iterated common-factor model with oblique rotation)
MDS – Multidimensional scaling analysis (Guttman Radex model)
CA – Cluster analysis
(the results of these analyses follow on next series of slides)

Summary of exploratory factor analysis (iterative principal-axes common factoring with oblique rotation) of WAIS-IV subtest intercorrelation matrix across all ages in norm sample (Table 5.1 WAIS-IV technical manual, p. 62) – analysis by Kevin McGrew
5-factor solution
4-factor solution

MDS (Guttman Radex model) of WAIS-IV subtest intercorrelations
3
Short-term memory /working memory (Gsm)
1
Processing speed (Gs)
LN
DS
CD
Verbal know &
comp (Gc)
VC
CO
Dimension-2
Fluid
reasoning (Gf)
AR
MR
CA
SS
SI
IN
FW
BD
VP
-1
PCM
Visual-spatial processing (Gv)
-3
-3
-1
1
3
Dimension-1

WAIS-IV test Cluster Tree (Wards method)
of WAIS-IV subtest intercorrelations
Verbal know & comp (Gc)
IN
CO
VC
Level (unspeeded) cognitive abilities
SI
Short-term & working memory (Gsm)
LN
DS
AR
Fluid Reasoning (Gf)
FW
MR
Visual-Spatial Proc.(Gv)
BD
VP
General Intelligence (g) as per WAIS-IV
?
PCM
CD
Processing Speed (Gs)
(rate cognitive abilities)
SS
CA
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
Distances

So…….what does the WAIS-IV measure?
Conclusion and discussion

K. McGrew’s WAIS-IV Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) summary conclusion
(Kevin McGrew 11-4-09; 9-14-10 Rev)
Visual Puzzles (SR/Vz)
Block Design (SR/Vz)
Pic. Completion (CF)
Symbol Search (P/R9)
Coding (R9)
Cancellation (P,R9)
Vocabulary (VL)
Comprehension (LD/K0)
Similarities (LD/VL)
Information (K0)
Digit Span (MS/MW)
Let-Num. Seq. (MW)
g
Matrix Reasoning (I)
Figure Weights (RQ)
Arithmetic (K0)
Arithmetic (MS/MW)
Arithmetic (A3)
Arithmetic (RQ)
Gq
Gsm
Ga
Gv
Glr
Gs
Gf
Gc
Dashed Gq broad ability arrow and oval, which is also deliberately set off to the left side, designates that math achievement abilities are typically found in achievement tests, but have been shown to be measured by some tests in some cognitive/IQ batteries
Dashed multiple rectangles for Arithmetic subtest reflects conclusion that Arithmetic is factorially complex and has been suggested to tap 2-4 different broad Gf-Gc broad domains. This was evident in the preceding analysis and prior Wechsler joint or cross-battery factor analysis studies that have included a greater breadth of ability indicators, particularly Gq. See Wechsler related posts at IQs Corner blog (www.iqscorner.com) for information on these studies and McGrew & Flanagan (1998) and Flanagan, McGrew & Ortiz ( 2000) synthesis of this research.

WAIS-IV CHC Analysis Summary (© K. McGrew 9-13-10 Rev.)
g
KM
A3
Gq
LD
K0
VL
LS
K1
K2
LA
A5
CM
OP
MY
KL
Gc
Acquired Knowledge
RC
SG
V
RD
CZ
RS
WA
EU
Grw
PC
US
UR
U3
UM
UK
UL
U1/9
U8
U6
U5
UA/T/U
UP
Ga
I
RG
RP
RE
RQ
Gf
Vz
SR
MV
CS
SS
CF
PI
LE
IL
PN
IM
Gv
M6
MA
L0
MM
FE
FI
FF
FX
FO
SP
OP
FW
NA
FA
Glr
Gsm
MS
MW
R9
N
P
Gs
Other/new
R1
R2
R4
R7
Gt

Two (of many) advantages of CHC-based analysis IQ test batteries
Understanding and comparing IQ scores across editions within the same IQ battery
Understanding and comparing IQ scores between different IQ batteries
IQ test CHC DNA Fingerprints

WISC
WISC-R
WISC-III
WISC-IV
The evolution of the CHC ability content of the various WISC FS IQ scores
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics, Kevin McGrew, 2-5-2010

Comparing global IQ score compositions from two different IQ test batteries (WAIS-IV & WJ III)

Comparing IQ’s from special purpose and comprehensive test batteries
Broad CHC cognitive
ability domains
Gc = comprehension-knowledge
Gv = visual-spatial processing
Gs = processing speed
Ga = auditory processing
Gsm = Short-term memory
Gf = fluid reasoning
Glr = long-term storage/retrieval
Gq = quantitative knowledge
IQ Test CHC DNA Fingerprint comparison of proportional coverage
of broad CHC ability domains for BAT-R and TONI-2
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP) llc Kevin McGrew, 2-6-2010

CHC analysis of select commonly used neuropsychological tests and test batteries
This is preliminary “work in progress”
I am NOT a neuropsychologist – looking for feedback and expertise to refine
Goal is to demonstrate/model a “mode of thinking & process” for NP’s to apply CHC theory to their assessments
Time constraints makes it impossible to cover all the major NP tests and batteries commonly used.

Trail Making Tests: CHC task-analysis and CHC-grounded follow-up testing example

TMT: Common neuropsychological interpretations/hypothesis viewed with CHC lens (First cut CHC thoughts)
Cognitive processing speed (Gs)
Psychomotor (fine) speed, dexterity (Gps)
Visual scanning, visual search (Gv-SS)
Attention-sustained visual, attention-shifting (AC)
EF- executive control, cognitive flexibility, inhibition-disinhibition ( )

Hoelzle(2008) has done (albeit on a smaller scale) for neuropsychological datasets what Carroll (1993) did in his seminal EFA of cognitive ability datasets
This served as the starting point for the current NP-CHC linkage work
But, there are some caveats re: Hoelzel analyses due to constraints of secondary data analysis (I went beyond and “tweaked” his conclusions)
Insufficient markers of some CHC domains – factors could not emerge (results in some amalgam factors)
Lack of indicators of CHC domains of Gp, Gps, Go, Gh, Gk

(Hoelzle, 2008)

(Hoelzle, 2008)
77 separate EFA secondary analysis reported !!!!!!

Hoelzle (2008) aprioriCHC task analysis hypotheses: TMT (Trail Making Test) example
Gsm
Gf
Gs

Hoelzle (2008) EFA secondary analysis summary of five datasets meeting criteria that included TMT test(s)

Gs
Glr
Hoelzle (2008) EFA secondary analysis summaries of datasets that included TMT test(s)
Glr
Gs

Gs
Gsm,Ga?
Gf
Gf,Gv,Gs
Glr

Gh,Gv/Gf,Gs ?
Gc
?
Gf
Gps

Hoelzle (2008) empirical EFA-based CHC conclusions: TMT test
Primarily Gs
Gs

Trail Making Test (TMT) CHC Analysis Summary (© K. McGrew 9-13-10 Rev.)
g
KM
A3
Gq
LD
K0
VL
LS
K1
K2
LA
A5
CM
OP
MY
KL
Gc
Acquired Knowledge
RC
SG
V
RD
CZ
RS
WA
EU
Grw
PC
US
UR
U3
UM
UK
UL
U1/9
U8
U6
U5
UA/T/U
UP
Ga
I
RG
RP
RE
RQ
Gf
Vz
SR
MV
CS
SS
CF
PI
LE
IL
PN
IM
Gv
M6
MA
L0
MM
FE
FI
FF
FX
FO
SP
OP
FW
NA
FA
Glr
Gsm
MS
MW
R9
N
P
Gs
Other/new
R1
R2
R4
R7
Gt
?

Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test (ROCF): CHC task-analysis and possible CHC-grounded follow-up testing example

ROCF: Common neuropsychological interpretations/hypothesis viewed via CHC lens: (First cut CHC thoughts)
Planning, organizational skills, and prob. solving strategies (EF, Gf, Gsm-MW)
Visual memory (Gv-MV)
Visual perceptual abilities (Gv-CS,MV,SS)
Visual-spatial/constructional abilities (Gv-SR,Vz,IM; Gp)
Motor ability (Gp)
Episodic memory function (Glr-M6, MA)
Incidental (vs intentional) learning (Glr-L1)
Copy component (Gv, Gp)
Recall (immediate, delayed) component (Glr-M6)
[Not including the “recognition memory” procedure in this presenation]

Neuropsych. Test-CHC Analysis Summary: ROCF Test

ROCF CHC Analysis Summary ( © K. McGrew 9-13-10 Rev.)
g
KM
A3
Gq
LD
K0
VL
LS
K1
K2
LA
A5
CM
OP
MY
KL
Gc
Acquired Knowledge
RC
SG
V
RD
CZ
RS
WA
EU
Grw
PC
US
UR
U3
UM
UK
UL
U1/9
U8
U6
U5
UA/T/U
UP
Ga
I
RG
RP
RE
RQ
Gf
Vz
SR
MV
CS
SS
CF
PI
LE
IL
PN
IM
Gv
M6
MA
L0
MM
FE
FI
FF
FX
FO
SP
OP
FW
NA
FA
Glr
Gsm
MS
MW
R9
N
P
Gs
Other/new
R1
R2
R4
R7
Gt

CHC analysis of commonly used neuropsychological test batteries: Wechsler Memory Scales example

Neuropsych. Test Battery -CHC Analysis Summary: WMS-III/IV Test

WMS-III/IV CHC Analysis Summary (K. McGrew 9-13-10 Rev.)
g
KM
A3
Gq
LD
K0
VL
LS
K1
K2
LA
A5
CM
OP
MY
KL
Gc
Acquired Knowledge
RC
SG
V
RD
CZ
RS
WA
EU
Grw
PC
US
UR
U3
UM
UK
UL
U1/9
U8
U6
U5
UA/T/U
UP
Ga
I
RG
RP
RE
RQ
Gf
Vz
SR
MV
CS
SS
CF
PI
LE
IL
PN
IM
Gv
M6
MA
L0
MM
FE
FI
FF
FX
FO
SP
OP
FW
NA
FA
Glr
Gsm
MS
MW
R9
N
P
Gs
Other/new
R1
R2
R4
R7
Gt

This is research/work in progress: Suggested research that needs to be explored and integrated. Go from here to……………..

The WJ III (AUS Adaptation) is an ideal battery for following up NP assessment results when the focus is on:
(a) disentangling the different mixtures of multiple CHC abilities commonly found in NP tests or,
(b) conducting more in-depth focused (confirmatory?) assessment of NP identified CHC abilities of concern
Next slide shows summary of broad and narrow CHC abilities measured by the WJ III
Note: Conflict of interest disclosure

WJ III (Stnd+Ext Batteries) CHC Analysis Summary (K. McGrew 9-13-10 Rev.)
g
[Note. g (GIA) score does not include tests from Gq or Grw]
KM
A3
Gq
LD
K0
VL
LS
K1
K2
LA
A5
CM
OP
MY
KL
Gc
Acquired Knowledge
RC
SG
V
RD
CZ
RS
WA
EU
Grw
PC
US
UR
U3
UM
UK
UL
U1/9
U8
U6
U5
UA/T/U
UP
Ga
I
RG
RP
RE
RQ
Gf
Vz
SR
MV
CS
SS
CF
PI
LE
IL
PN
IM
Gv
M6
MA
L0
MM
FE
FI
FF
FX
FO
SP
OP
FW
NA
FA
Glr
Gsm
MS
MW
R9
N
P
Gs
Other/new
R1
R2
R4
R7
Gt

“ Tests do not think for themselves, nor do they directly communicate with patients. Like a stethoscope, a blood pressure gauge, or an MRI scan, a psychological test is a dumb tool, and the worth of the tool cannot be separated from the sophistication of the clinician who draws inferences from it and then communicates with patients and professionals”
Meyer et al. (2001). Psychological testing and psychological assessment. American Psychologist, February

“ If you give a monkey a stradivarius violin and you get bad music……..you don’t blame the violin”
McGrew (circa 1986)

This is NOT a model of human functioning – it is a “working” heuristic of Kevin McGrew’s current hypothesized thinking (iteration 3?) regarding the important dimensions that may be important in the development and interpretation of measures of human abilities …………. (not a Guilford SOI model where all cells are believed to exist)
Content/stimulus dimension
Language (aud.-verb.)
Numerical/quant.
Somatasensory
Visual-figural
Olfactory
?: Is the low-how cog. complexity continuum simply a continuous representation of the Type 1/I processing distinction ?
Cognitive knowledge
domains/systems
Cognitive operations
Type II
Processing
Cognitive control
High
Abilty domain dimension
Cognitive efficiency
Sensory functions
Low
Type I
Processing
Motor functions
Cognitve complexity
dimension
Note: CHC taxonomy is embedded in the ability domain dimension (see prior slides)

Iteration 2:
Hypothesized CHC-based
Intelligence model
Plus mapping of common neuropsych. measurement domainsto hypothesized model
Kevin McGrew
8-18-2010
Lets look at the pieces one by one – blow them up

[Note. Empirical support for this three-way Gf breakdown will be presented in Saturday’s keynote address (Beyond CHC) ]

Motor functions (including speed)-Expressive across domains

https://online.cdu.edu.au	162
http://online.cdu.edu.au	32
http://blackboard.stthom.edu	8
https://blackboard.stthom.edu	3
http://www.google.com	2
https://cdu.blackboard.com	1

New directions in neuropsychological assessment: Augmenting neuropsychological assessment with CHC cognitive measures

by Kevin McGrew

Accessibility

Upload Details

Usage Rights

6 Embeds 208

Statistics

New directions in neuropsychological assessment: Augmenting neuropsychological assessment with CHC cognitive measures Presentation Transcript