This presentation is based on Schneider, W. J., & McGrew, K. S. (in press). The Cattell-Horn-Carroll Theory of Cognitive Abilities. This presentation includes a portion of key material to be published in a forthcoming CHC update/revision chapter-->In D. P. Flanagan & Erin M .McDonough (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests and issues (4thed.,) New York: Guilford Press.
This is only a small amount of the chapter. Also, I have inserted some new material related to test interpretation that is not included in the to-be-published chapter. The tentative date for publication of the Flanagan book is spring 2018.
4. We will
only cover a
portion of
the material
in Schneider
& McGrew
(in press)
chapter
5. Each broad domain has similar
subheadings (not included on this
slide)
We will
only cover a
portion of
the material
in Schneider
& McGrew
(in press)
chapter
12. Gc Grw Gf Gv Glr Gt Gh Gp
g
Gkn Gq Gwm Ga Gs Gk Go Gps
Marital discord had been present
in the Gy + Gr (Glr) union
originally presided over by
Kevin McGrew in 1997
13.
14. Glr factor was a narrow MA
(associative memory) factor with no
indicators of retrieval fluency
available
15.
16. Despite appropriate caveats that his initial
synthesized framework was “only an initial attempt”
and only a “proposed framework”, McGrew’s (1997)
Glr union stuck and was crystallized in all subsequent
CHC articles and book chapters by multiple scholars.
The weak foundation upon which it rested was not re-
evaluated until 15–20 years later.
24. Facets are based on facet theory and represent logical based
classifications of test materials as per stimulus content
characteristics (e.g., verbal, numerical, figures, etc.) and are not
to be confused with ability factors. See Humphreys (1962).
Facets become fashionable in CHC theory
25. -2 -1 0 1
-2
-1
0
1
2
ORLVOC
NUMSER
VRBATN
LETPAT
PHNPRO
VAL
VISUAL
GENINF
CONFRM
NUMREV NUMPAT
NWDREP
STYREC
PICREC
ANLSYN
OBJNUM
PAIRCN
MEMWRD
PICVOC
ORLCMP
SEGMNT
RPCNAM
SENREP
UNDDIR
SNDBLN
RETFLU
SNDAWR APPROB
SPELL
PSGCMP
CALC
WRTSMP
ORLRDG
MTHFLU
SNWRFL
RDGREC
NUMMAT
EDIT
WRDFLU
SPLSND
SCI SOC
HUM
Speed-fluency
Reading-writing
More product-
dominant/
culturally
loaded
(Intelligence-
as-
Knowledge)
More process-
dominant/
less cultural
loaded
(Intelligence-
as-Process)
WJ IV test 2D
MDS (Ages 6 to
19; n = 4,082)
More System 2 / controlled
deliberate cog. processes
More System 1 /automatic
/automatized cog.
Quantitative-
numeric
Figural-visual
Auditory
VerbalVerbal
#
Facets (auditiory,
Verbal, reading-
writing,
Quantitative-
numeric,
figural-visual)
where presented
in MDS of WJ IV
in the WJ IV
technical manual)
34. • P has been one of the more studied cognitive abilities
(circa, since 1951).
• Early & contemporary factor analysis research has
always suggested that the P factor may include
multiple sub-factors.
• P tests come in many flavors.
Gs
Broad Cognitive
Speed
• Carroll (1993) suggested that the various tests of P
consist of two types:
• Searching and Comparing. (Similar to Ackerman
et al.’s first two, of four, P sub-factors)
• Carroll (1993) characterized the myriad of possible
P factors by means of a mapping sentence:
• Speed in [searching for and finding/correctly
finding] [one/or more] [literal/digital/figural]
stimuli in a visual field arranged [by pairs/by
rows/in columns/at random] for
[identity/difference/size/etc]
35. R9 (rate-of-test-taking) should never have been part
of the CHC taxonomy. A careful review of the
results from the 12 studies and Carroll’s own
statements suggest this factor never should have
been accorded serious status in the CHC
framework.
R9 has become a “I don’t know” or “other”
classification. Conversely, all Gs tasks could be
classified R9. The R9 classification, as currently
used, has little convergent/divergent validity.
Gs
Broad Cognitive
Speed
36. WJ IV/WISC-IV speed test relations (n= 174)
All of these tests (except Rapid
Picture Naming; Gr-NA) have been
classified as Gs-P in the CHC and
XBA literature
40. 47% 45% 32% 30%45% 35%
53% 55% 55% 65% 68% 70%
WJ IV
Number
Pattern
Matching
WJ IV
Pair
Cancellation
WISC-IV
Coding
WJ IV
Letter
Pattern
Matching
WISC-IV
Symbol
Search
WISC-IV
Cancellation
Shared or common Gs variance (39% across the 6 Gs tests)
Unique (unshared) variance: Specificity + error variance
Error variance (for illustrative purposes these are set to equal across the tests)
All of these tests have been classified as Gs-P in the CHC and XBA literature
41. 81% 78% 64% 51%72%
19% 22% 28%
66%
36% 49%
WISC-IV
Vocabulary
(VL)
WJ IV
Oral
Vocabulary
(VL)
WISC-IV
Information
(K0)
WJ IV
General
Information
(K0)
WISC-IV
Similarities
(VL)
WISC-IV
Comprehension
(K0)
35%
Shared or common Gc variance (69% across the 6 Gc tests)
Unique (unshared) variance: Specificity + error variance
Error variance (for illustrative purposes these are set to equal across the tests)
Gc classified tests
34%
52. 66% 60% 39%57%
34% 40% 43%
42%
61%
WISC-IV
Matrix
Reasoning
(I)
WJ IV
Number
Series
(RQ)
WJ IV
Concept
Formation
(I)
WJ IV
Analysis-
Synthesis
(RG)
WISC-IV
Picture
Concepts
(I)
35%
Shared or common Gc variance (53% across the 5 Gf tests)
Unique (unshared) variance: Specificity + error variance
Error variance (for illustrative purposes these are set to equal across the tests)
Gf classified tests
58%
53. A Conceptual Map of Fluid
Reasoning(Gf) and Its
Overlap with Other Broad
Abilities (Gc, Gv, Gq).
Fluid Reasoning (Gf) likely
has both a process facet
(inductive vs. deductive
reasoning) and a content
facet (verbal, spatial,
quantitative, and possibly
others), each of which
overlaps with other broad
abilities.
Facet-nating !
54. WJ IV Number Series
WJ IV Concept Formation
WJ IV Analysis-Synthesis
WISC-V Matrix Reasoning
WISC-V Picture Concepts
WISC-V Figure Weights
Group Activity
Lets place each of the following
tests in the figure
55. Two other (related) dimensions to consider in selecting and interpreting Gf tests
• Degree of cognitive load
Under
control
of
instructional
designers
56. Two other (related) dimensions to consider in selecting and interpreting Gf tests
• Amount of external scaffolding vs Gf “in the wild”
WJ IV Number Series
WISC-V Matrix Reasoning
WISC-V Picture Concepts
WISC-V Figure Weights
WJ IV Concept Formation
WJ IV Analysis-Synthesis
79. Working Memory Capacity (Wc). The ability to
manipulate information in primary memory.
This is not technically a narrow ability.
Gwm
Working Memory Capacity =
Short-term Storage + Attentional Control
81. 62% 40%56% 44%
36% 38% 44% 56% 60%
WJ IV
Verbal
Attention
(WM,AC)
WJ IV
Numbers
Reversed
(WM,AC)
WISC-IV
Digit
Span
(MW)
WJ IV
Object-
Number
Seq. (WM)
WISC-IV
Letter-
Number
Seq. (WM)
Shared or common Gs variance (53% across the 5 Gwm tests) – n=174 WJ IV/WISC-IV validity sample
Unique (unshared) variance: Specificity + error variance
Error variance (for illustrative purposes these are set to equal across the tests)
Gwm tests (classified as per prior CHC and XBA literature)
64%
83. 41%
59%
51%
49%
47%
53%
44%
41%
WJ IV
Verbal
Attention
(WM,AC)
WJ IV
Memory for
Words
(MW)
WJ IV
Nonword
Repetition
(MS)
WJ IV
Object-
Number
Seq. (WM)
Shared or common Gs variance (44% across the 7 Gwm tests) – in 6-19 WJ IV norm sample
Unique (unshared) variance: Specificity + error variance
Error variance (for illustrative purposes these are set to equal across the tests)
44%
39%
61%
31%
69%
WJ IV
Understanding
Directions
(WM)
WJ IV
Numbers
Reversed
(WM,AC)
WJ IV
Sentence
Repetition
(MW)
WJ IV COG/OL Gwm tests (classified as per prior CHC and XBA literature)
56%
89. Tasks that make greater use of the
articulatory rehearsal maintenance
mechanism
• A language production process
mechanism
• Phonological effects research
• Covert/overt rehearsal
Tasks that make greater use the of
attentional refreshing maintenance
mechanism
• Reactivation memory trace mechanism
across stimulus domains (lang, visual,
spatial)
• Increasing focus and inhibiting
distractions
• Controlling and directing focus of
attention
There may be two primary mechanisms of verbal working memory maintenance
(2015)
96. “Many brain regions interact during working
memory and include ‘executive’ regions in the PFC,
parietal cortex, and basal ganglia, as well as regions
specialized for processing the particular
representations to be maintained, such as the
fusiform face area for maintaining face
information.”
“Persistent neural activity in various brain regions
accompanies working memory and is functionally
necessary for maintenance and integration of
information in working memory.”