New directions in neuropsychological assessment: Augmenting neuropsychological assessment with CHC cognitive measures <br ...
Stay informed<br />
Overview of today’s presentation<br />Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory of cognitive ability is the consensus taxonomy of ...
“In an ever-changing world, psychological testing remains the flagship of applied psychology”<br />Embretson, S. E. (1996)...
Three things (or major steps) completed that have resulted in the intelligence model(s) to be presented today<br />
Things 1 and 2:<br />Will be covered quickly to provide context and background for primary content of today – Thing 3<br /...
Overview of today’s presentation<br />Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory of cognitive ability is the consensus taxonomy of ...
The Cattell-Horn-Carroll  (CHC) theory of cognitive<br />abilities is the contemporary consensus<br />psychometric model o...
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 theory has entered the mainstream neuropsychological assessment literature<br />
CHC theory has entered the mainstream neuropsychological assessment literature<br />
A landmark event in understanding the structure of human cognitive abilities - 1993<br />
THE SCOPE OF CARROLL’S FACTOR ANALYTIC REVIEW<br />Reviewed factor analytic research of the past 50-60 years<br />Includes...
The verdict is unanimous re: the importance of Carroll’s (1993) work<br />Richard Snow (1993):<br /> “John Carroll has don...
...most disciplines have a common set of terms and definitions (i.e., a standard nomenclature) that facilitates communicat...
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...
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...
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...
Importance Of Classification <br />Taxonomies In All Sciences<br />Classification is arguably one of the most central and ...
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...
CARROLL’S (1993) THREE-STRATUM THEORY OF COGNITIVE ABILITIES<br />69 narrow abilities found in data sets analyzed by Carro...
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...
Contemporary psychometric research has converged on <br />the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory of cognitive abilities as ...
CHC theory “has formed the foundation<br />for most contemporary IQ tests” (Kaufman, 2009, p. 91)<br />WJ-R (1989) and WJ ...
Table of broad and narrow CHC abilities and definitions is included in your<br />handout packet<br />Also available at:  w...
g<br />McGrew Table of CHC Gf-Gc Cognitive Elements <br />(© Kevin McGrew 3-25-99;  9-13-10 Rev.)<br />KM<br />A3<br />Gq<...
Overview of today’s presentation<br />Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory of cognitive ability is the consensus taxonomy of ...
Psychometric vs. neuropsychological conception/model assessment gap<br />“It is notable that there is a gap between neurop...
Psychometric vs. neuropsychological assessment gap: Select reasons why (Hoelzle, 2008)<br /><ul><li> Singular concept of i...
 NP assessment has been traditionally non-theoretical---popular models of intelligence and cognitive abilities have been d...
 NP measures traditionally selected on ability to differentiate between neurological and normal conditions---psychometric ...
Horizontalmultiple regression (aptitude/functional/pragmatic) model<br />Criterion DVs<br />Gf<br />Gc<br />Glr<br />G..<b...
Overview of today’s presentation<br />Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory of cognitive ability is the consensus taxonomy of ...
Arm-chair factor analysis of select neuropsychological assessment model domains<br /><ul><li> Strauss et al. (2006)
Lezak et al. (2004)
 Rabin et al. (2005)
Shaghnessy & O’Connor (2009)
 Miller (2010)
 Flanagan et al. (2010)</li></li></ul><li>Lets look at the pieces one by one – blow them up<br />
Arm-chair factor analysis of neuropsych. assessment domains  [and CHC construct mapping] (K. McGrew; 8-18-10) [I of 3]<br ...
Arm-chair factor analysis of neuropsych. assessment domains  [and CHC construct mapping] (K. McGrew; 8-18-10) [I of 3]<br ...
Arm-chair factor analysis of neuropsych. assessment domains  [and CHC construct mapping] (K. McGrew; 8-18-10) [I of 3]<br ...
Overview of today’s presentation<br />Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory of cognitive ability is the consensus taxonomy of ...
CHC analysis of select commonly used neuropsychological tests and test batteries<br />This is preliminary “work in progres...
Kevin McGrew completed exploratory analysis of the single grand WAIS-IV subtest correlation matrix reported in Table 5.1 i...
 MDS – Multidimensional scaling analysis (Guttman Radex model)
 CA – Cluster analysis</li></ul>(the results of these analyses follow on next series of slides)<br />
Summary of exploratory factor analysis (iterative principal-axes common factoring with oblique rotation) of WAIS-IV subtes...
MDS (Guttman Radex model) of WAIS-IV subtest intercorrelations<br />3<br />Short-term memory /working memory (Gsm)<br />1<...
WAIS-IV test Cluster Tree (Wards method) <br />of WAIS-IV subtest intercorrelations<br />Verbal know &  comp (Gc) <br />IN...
So…….what does the WAIS-IV measure?<br />Conclusion and discussion<br />
K. McGrew’s WAIS-IV Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) summary conclusion<br />(Kevin McGrew 11-4-09; 9-14-10 Rev)<br />Visual Puz...
WAIS-IV  CHC Analysis Summary (© K. McGrew  9-13-10 Rev.)<br />g<br />KM<br />A3<br />Gq<br />LD<br />K0<br />VL<br />LS<b...
Two (of many) advantages of CHC-based analysis IQ test batteries<br />Understanding and comparing  IQ scores across editio...
WISC<br />WISC-R<br />WISC-III<br />WISC-IV<br />The evolution of the CHC ability content of the various WISC FS IQ scores...
Comparing global IQ score compositions from two different IQ test batteries (WAIS-IV & WJ III)<br />
Comparing IQ’s from special purpose and comprehensive test batteries <br />Broad CHC cognitive <br />ability domains<br />...
CHC analysis of select commonly used neuropsychological tests and test batteries<br />This is preliminary “work in progres...
TMT:   Common neuropsychological interpretations/hypothesis viewed with CHC lens (First cut CHC thoughts)<br /><ul><li>Cog...
 Psychomotor (fine) speed, dexterity (Gps)
 Visual scanning, visual search (Gv-SS)
 Attention-sustained visual, attention-shifting (AC)
 EF- executive control, cognitive flexibility,  inhibition-disinhibition ( )</li></li></ul><li>Hoelzle(2008) has done (alb...
 Lack of indicators of CHC domains of Gp, Gps, Go, Gh, Gk</li></li></ul><li>(Hoelzle, 2008)<br />
(Hoelzle, 2008)<br />77 separate EFA secondary analysis reported !!!!!!<br />
Hoelzle (2008) aprioriCHC task analysis hypotheses:  TMT (Trail Making Test) example<br />Gsm<br />Gf<br />Gs<br />
Hoelzle (2008) EFA secondary analysis summary of five datasets meeting criteria that included TMT test(s)<br />
Gs<br />Glr<br />Hoelzle (2008) EFA secondary analysis summaries of datasets that included TMT test(s)<br />Glr<br />Gs<br />
Gs<br />Gsm,Ga?<br />Gf<br />Gf,Gv,Gs<br />Glr<br />Hoelzle (2008) EFA secondary analysis summaries of datasets that inclu...
Gh,Gv/Gf,Gs ?<br />Gc<br />?<br />Gf<br />Gps<br />Hoelzle (2008) EFA secondary analysis summaries of datasets that includ...
Hoelzle (2008) empirical EFA-based CHC conclusions:  TMT test<br />Primarily Gs<br />Gs<br />
Neuropsych. Test-CHC  Analysis Summary:  Trail Making Test<br />( ©Institute for Applied Psychometrics, Kevin McGrew, 9-14...
Trail Making Test (TMT) CHC Analysis Summary (© K. McGrew  9-13-10 Rev.)<br />g<br />KM<br />A3<br />Gq<br />LD<br />K0<br...
Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test (ROCF):  CHC task-analysis and possible CHC-grounded follow-up testing example<br />
ROCF:   Common neuropsychological interpretations/hypothesis viewed via CHC lens:  (First cut CHC thoughts)<br /><ul><li> ...
 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)</li></ul>[Not including the “recognition memory” procedure in this presenat...
Neuropsych. Test-CHC  Analysis Summary:  ROCF Test<br />( ©Institute for Applied Psychometrics, Kevin McGrew, 9-14-10)<br />
Neuropsych. Test-CHC  Analysis Summary:  ROCF Test<br />( ©Institute for Applied Psychometrics, Kevin McGrew, 9-14-10)<br />
ROCF CHC Analysis Summary ( © K. McGrew  9-13-10 Rev.)<br />g<br />KM<br />A3<br />Gq<br />LD<br />K0<br />VL<br />LS<br /...
CHC analysis of commonly used neuropsychological test batteries:  Wechsler Memory Scales example<br />
Neuropsych. Test Battery -CHC  Analysis Summary:  WMS-III/IV Test<br />( ©Institute for Applied Psychometrics, Kevin McGre...
Neuropsych. Test Battery -CHC  Analysis Summary:  WMS-III/IV Test<br />( ©Institute for Applied Psychometrics, Kevin McGre...
Neuropsych. Test Battery -CHC  Analysis Summary:  WMS-III/IV Test<br />( ©Institute for Applied Psychometrics, Kevin McGre...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

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

6,427 views

Published on

This is a presentation I made at the 2010 CNN conference in Fremantle Australia. It is an attempt to integrate CHC with neuropsychological assessment, with an emphasis on how NP tests can be interpreted from the CHC intelligence model which serves as a foundation for follow-up testing of NP tests with CHC measures.

2 Comments
6 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • McGrew is AMAZING!
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Awesome work!
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
No Downloads
Views
Total views
6,427
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
250
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
273
Comments
2
Likes
6
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

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

  1. 1. New directions in neuropsychological assessment: Augmenting neuropsychological assessment with CHC cognitive measures <br />Kevin S. McGrew, PhD<br />Woodcock-Muñoz Foundation<br />16th Annual APS College of Clinical Neuropsychologists Conference<br />From East to West: New directions in Neuropsychology<br />30 September - 2 October 2010<br />Notre Dame University, Fremantle, Western Australia<br />
  2. 2. Stay informed<br />
  3. 3. Overview of today’s presentation<br />Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory of cognitive ability is the consensus taxonomy of cognitive abilities – Brief<br />Neuropsychological vs psychometric approaches – conceptual model differences<br />Mapping CHC model to neuropsychological models<br />CHC analysis of neuropsychological measures – illustrative examples <br />
  4. 4. “In an ever-changing world, psychological testing remains the flagship of applied psychology”<br />Embretson, S. E. (1996). The new rules of measurement.<br />Psychological Assessment, 8 (4), 341-349.<br />
  5. 5. Three things (or major steps) completed that have resulted in the intelligence model(s) to be presented today<br />
  6. 6. Things 1 and 2:<br />Will be covered quickly to provide context and background for primary content of today – Thing 3<br />These “things” will be covered in more detail in my Saturday keynote presentation<br />
  7. 7. Overview of today’s presentation<br />Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory of cognitive ability is the consensus taxonomy of cognitive abilities – Brief<br />Neuropsychological vs psychometric approaches – conceptual model differences<br />Mapping CHC model to neuropsychological models<br />CHC analysis of neuropsychological measures – illustrative examples <br />
  8. 8. The Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory of cognitive<br />abilities is the contemporary consensus<br />psychometric model of the structure of human intelligence<br />The CHC Timeline Project (and detailed information re: CHC theory/model)can be found at IQ’s Corner blog<br />www.iqscorner.com<br />
  9. 9. 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 />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 />
  10. 10. CHC theory has entered the mainstream neuropsychological assessment literature<br />
  11. 11. CHC theory has entered the mainstream neuropsychological assessment literature<br />
  12. 12. A landmark event in understanding the structure of human cognitive abilities - 1993<br />
  13. 13. THE SCOPE OF CARROLL’S FACTOR ANALYTIC REVIEW<br />Reviewed factor analytic research of the past 50-60 years<br />Includes nearly all of the more important and classic factor analytic investigations<br />Started with 1,500 references<br />Final pool of 461 data sets that meet specific criteria<br />Reanalyzed all or nearly all of the data sets<br />Used exploratory methods in order to “let the data speak for themselves”<br />
  14. 14. 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 />
  15. 15. ...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…..<br />(Flanagan & McGrew, 1998)<br />
  16. 16.
  17. 17. 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 />(1e) Consensus Cattell-Horn-Carroll Hierarchical Three-Stratum Model <br />CHC as the consensus psychometric model of intelligence<br />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. <br />The Science of Intelligence <br />(Doug Detterman, 2010; book manuscript in preparation) <br />
  18. 18. 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 />(1e) Consensus Cattell-Horn-Carroll Hierarchical Three-Stratum Model <br />CHC as the consensus psychometric model of intelligence<br />“The Cattell–Horn–Carroll (CHC) theory of cognitive abilities is the best validated model of human cognitive abilities”<br />[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.]<br />
  19. 19. 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 />(1e) Consensus Cattell-Horn-Carroll Hierarchical Three-Stratum Model <br />CHC as the consensus psychometric model of intelligence<br />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.<br />N. R. Burns<br />T. Nettlebeck<br />L. Stankov<br />R. Roberts<br />S. Bowden<br />
  20. 20. Importance Of Classification <br />Taxonomies In All Sciences<br />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).<br />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.<br />
  21. 21. 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 />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 />
  22. 22. CARROLL’S (1993) THREE-STRATUM THEORY OF COGNITIVE ABILITIES<br />69 narrow abilities found in data sets analyzed by Carroll<br /> g<br /> General<br />Intelligence<br /> General<br />(Stratum III)<br />Gf<br />Gc<br />Gy<br />Gv<br />Gu<br />Gr<br />Gs<br />Gt<br /> Broad<br />(Stratum II)<br />Processing<br />Speed (RT<br />Decision<br />Speed)<br />General<br />Memory &<br />Learning<br />Broad<br />Auditory<br />Perception<br />Broad<br />Retrieval<br />Ability<br />Broad<br />Cognitive<br />Speediness<br />Broad<br />Visual<br />Perception<br />Fluid<br />Intelligence<br />Crystallized<br />Intelligence<br /> Narrow<br />(Stratum I)<br />-Cognitive abilities vary by degree of generality or breadth (three strata – general, broad, narrow)<br /><ul><li> General intelligence or g exists, and different cognitive abilities are more related (correlated) with g than others</li></li></ul><li>Gf<br />Broad<br />RG<br />RP<br />Narrow<br />I<br />RQ<br />RE<br />CHC theory classifies abilities according to three levels or strata<br />g<br />Table of CHC broad and narrow abilities and their definitions can be found at www.IAPsych.com<br />General<br />RG = Gen Sequential (deductive) Reasoning<br />I = Induction<br />RQ = Quantitative Reasoning<br />RP = Piagetian Reasoning<br />RE = Speed of Reasoning<br />
  23. 23. 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 />
  24. 24. Contemporary psychometric research has converged on <br />the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory of cognitive abilities as the consensus working taxonomy of human intelligence<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 />
  25. 25. CHC theory “has formed the foundation<br />for most contemporary IQ tests” (Kaufman, 2009, p. 91)<br />WJ-R (1989) and WJ III (2001) – 7- 9 broad Gf-Gc abilities measured<br />SB5 (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 />
  26. 26.
  27. 27. Table of broad and narrow CHC abilities and definitions is included in your<br />handout packet<br />Also available at: www.iapsych.com/aus1b.pdf<br />
  28. 28. g<br />McGrew Table of CHC Gf-Gc Cognitive Elements <br />(© Kevin McGrew 3-25-99; 9-13-10 Rev.)<br />KM<br />A3<br />Gq<br />LD<br />K0<br />VL<br />LS<br />K1<br />K2<br />LA<br />A5<br />CM<br />OP<br />MY<br />KL<br />Gc<br />Acquired Knowledge<br />RC<br />SG<br />V<br />RD<br />CZ<br />RS<br />WA<br />EU<br />Grw<br />PC<br />US<br />UR<br />U3<br />UM<br />UK<br />UL<br />U1/9<br />U8<br />U6<br />U5<br />UA/T/U<br />UP<br />Ga<br />I<br />RG<br />RP<br />RE<br />RQ<br />Gf<br />Cognitive Operations<br />Vz<br />SR<br />MV<br />CS<br />SS<br />CF<br />PI<br />LE<br />IL<br />PN<br />IM<br />Gv<br />M6<br />MA<br />L0<br />MM<br />FE<br />FI<br />FF<br />FX<br />FO<br />SP<br />OP<br />FW<br />NA<br />FA<br />Glr<br />Gsm<br />MS<br />MW<br />R9<br />N<br />P<br />Gs<br />Cognitive Efficiency<br />Other/new<br />R1<br />R2<br />R4<br />R7<br />Gt<br />
  29. 29. Overview of today’s presentation<br />Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory of cognitive ability is the consensus taxonomy of cognitive abilities – Brief<br />Neuropsychological vs psychometric approaches – conceptual model differences<br />Mapping CHC model to neuropsychological models<br />CHC analysis of neuropsychological measures – illustrative examples <br />??? Metrics…skeptics….scales and tales<br /><ul><li> (aka., voodoo psychometrics)</li></li></ul><li>Thing 3 – attempt to integrate Thing 1 and Thing 2 with neuropsychological<br />assessment models<br />
  30. 30. Psychometric vs. neuropsychological conception/model assessment gap<br />“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.”<br />(Hoelzle, 2008)<br />
  31. 31. Psychometric vs. neuropsychological assessment gap: Select reasons why (Hoelzle, 2008)<br /><ul><li> Singular concept of intelligence (g) has hadminimal clinical utilityin neuropsychological assessment
  32. 32. NP assessment has been traditionally non-theoretical---popular models of intelligence and cognitive abilities have been derived via statistical procedures
  33. 33. 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</li></li></ul><li>Verticalfactor analysis (trait) model<br />Gf<br />Gc<br />Glr<br />G..<br />Gsm<br />Gv<br />etc<br />Attn<br />Psychometric approaches have had primary (but not sole) focus/goal on internal/structural validity within each construct domain --- Vertical models<br />
  34. 34. Horizontalmultiple regression (aptitude/functional/pragmatic) model<br />Criterion DVs<br />Gf<br />Gc<br />Glr<br />G..<br />Gsm<br />Gv<br />etc<br />Attn<br />TBI ?<br />Brain Area/function<br />Neuropsychological approaches have had primary (but not sole) focus/goal on external/predictive (Dx) validity – Horizontal models<br />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?)<br />
  35. 35. Overview of today’s presentation<br />Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory of cognitive ability is the consensus taxonomy of cognitive abilities – Brief<br />Neuropsychological vs psychometric approaches – conceptual model differences<br />Mapping CHC model to neuropsychological models<br />CHC analysis of neuropsychological measures – illustrative examples <br />??? Metrics…skeptics….scales and tales<br /><ul><li> (aka., voodoo psychometrics)</li></li></ul><li>The First Commandment of Neuropsychological Assessment<br />"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)<br />
  36. 36. Arm-chair factor analysis of select neuropsychological assessment model domains<br /><ul><li> Strauss et al. (2006)
  37. 37. Lezak et al. (2004)
  38. 38. Rabin et al. (2005)
  39. 39. Shaghnessy & O’Connor (2009)
  40. 40. Miller (2010)
  41. 41. Flanagan et al. (2010)</li></li></ul><li>Lets look at the pieces one by one – blow them up<br />
  42. 42. Arm-chair factor analysis of neuropsych. assessment domains [and CHC construct mapping] (K. McGrew; 8-18-10) [I of 3]<br />g<br />Gf<br />Gc<br />Grw<br />Gq<br />
  43. 43. Arm-chair factor analysis of neuropsych. assessment domains [and CHC construct mapping] (K. McGrew; 8-18-10) [I of 3]<br />Gv<br />Ga<br />Gsm<br />Glr<br />
  44. 44. Arm-chair factor analysis of neuropsych. assessment domains [and CHC construct mapping] (K. McGrew; 8-18-10) [I of 3]<br />Gs<br />Gsm<br />AC<br />??<br />Gp<br />Gps<br />Go<br />Gh<br />Gk<br />
  45. 45. Overview of today’s presentation<br />Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory of cognitive ability is the consensus taxonomy of cognitive abilities – Brief<br />Neuropsychological vs psychometric approaches – conceptual model differences<br />Mapping CHC model to neuropsychological models<br />CHC analysis of neuropsychological measures – illustrative examples <br />
  46. 46. CHC analysis of select commonly used neuropsychological tests and test batteries<br />This is preliminary “work in progress”<br />I am NOT a neuropsychologist – looking for feedback and expertise to refine<br />Goal is to demonstrate/model a “mode of thinking & process” for NP’s to apply CHC theory to their assessments<br /><ul><li>Time constraints makes it impossible to cover all the major NP tests and batteries commonly used.</li></li></ul><li>What does the WAIS-IV measure? CHC analysis and beyond <br />Kevin S. McGrew, PhD.<br />Educational & School Psychologist<br />Director<br />Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP)<br />
  47. 47.
  48. 48.
  49. 49. 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:<br /><ul><li> EFA – Exploratory factor analysis (iterated common-factor model with oblique rotation)
  50. 50. MDS – Multidimensional scaling analysis (Guttman Radex model)
  51. 51. CA – Cluster analysis</li></ul>(the results of these analyses follow on next series of slides)<br />
  52. 52. 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 <br />5-factor solution<br />4-factor solution<br />
  53. 53. MDS (Guttman Radex model) of WAIS-IV subtest intercorrelations<br />3<br />Short-term memory /working memory (Gsm)<br />1<br />Processing speed (Gs)<br />LN<br />DS<br />CD<br />Verbal know & <br />comp (Gc) <br />VC<br />CO<br />Dimension-2<br />Fluid <br />reasoning (Gf)<br />AR<br />MR<br />CA<br />SS<br />SI<br />IN<br />FW<br />BD<br />VP<br />-1<br />PCM<br />Visual-spatial processing (Gv)<br />-3<br />-3<br />-1<br />1<br />3<br />Dimension-1<br />
  54. 54. WAIS-IV test Cluster Tree (Wards method) <br />of WAIS-IV subtest intercorrelations<br />Verbal know & comp (Gc) <br />IN<br />CO<br />VC<br />Level (unspeeded) cognitive abilities<br />SI<br />Short-term & working memory (Gsm)<br />LN<br />DS<br />AR<br />Fluid Reasoning (Gf)<br />FW<br />MR<br />Visual-Spatial Proc.(Gv)<br />BD<br />VP<br />General Intelligence (g) as per WAIS-IV<br />?<br />PCM<br />CD<br />Processing Speed (Gs)<br />(rate cognitive abilities)<br />SS<br />CA<br />0.0<br />0.5<br />1.0<br />1.5<br />Distances<br />
  55. 55. So…….what does the WAIS-IV measure?<br />Conclusion and discussion<br />
  56. 56. K. McGrew’s WAIS-IV Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) summary conclusion<br />(Kevin McGrew 11-4-09; 9-14-10 Rev)<br />Visual Puzzles (SR/Vz)<br />Block Design (SR/Vz)<br />Pic. Completion (CF)<br />Symbol Search (P/R9)<br />Coding (R9)<br />Cancellation (P,R9)<br />Vocabulary (VL)<br />Comprehension (LD/K0)<br />Similarities (LD/VL)<br />Information (K0)<br />Digit Span (MS/MW)<br />Let-Num. Seq. (MW)<br />g<br />Matrix Reasoning (I)<br />Figure Weights (RQ)<br />Arithmetic (K0)<br />Arithmetic (MS/MW)<br />Arithmetic (A3)<br />Arithmetic (RQ)<br />Gq<br />Gsm<br />Ga<br />Gv<br />Glr<br />Gs<br />Gf<br />Gc<br />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<br />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. <br />
  57. 57. WAIS-IV CHC Analysis Summary (© K. McGrew 9-13-10 Rev.)<br />g<br />KM<br />A3<br />Gq<br />LD<br />K0<br />VL<br />LS<br />K1<br />K2<br />LA<br />A5<br />CM<br />OP<br />MY<br />KL<br />Gc<br />Acquired Knowledge<br />RC<br />SG<br />V<br />RD<br />CZ<br />RS<br />WA<br />EU<br />Grw<br />PC<br />US<br />UR<br />U3<br />UM<br />UK<br />UL<br />U1/9<br />U8<br />U6<br />U5<br />UA/T/U<br />UP<br />Ga<br />I<br />RG<br />RP<br />RE<br />RQ<br />Gf<br />Cognitive Operations<br />Vz<br />SR<br />MV<br />CS<br />SS<br />CF<br />PI<br />LE<br />IL<br />PN<br />IM<br />Gv<br />M6<br />MA<br />L0<br />MM<br />FE<br />FI<br />FF<br />FX<br />FO<br />SP<br />OP<br />FW<br />NA<br />FA<br />Glr<br />Gsm<br />MS<br />MW<br />R9<br />N<br />P<br />Gs<br />Cognitive Efficiency<br />Other/new<br />R1<br />R2<br />R4<br />R7<br />Gt<br />
  58. 58. Two (of many) advantages of CHC-based analysis IQ test batteries<br />Understanding and comparing IQ scores across editions within the same IQ battery<br />Understanding and comparing IQ scores between different IQ batteries<br />IQ test CHC DNA Fingerprints<br />
  59. 59. WISC<br />WISC-R<br />WISC-III<br />WISC-IV<br />The evolution of the CHC ability content of the various WISC FS IQ scores<br />© Institute for Applied Psychometrics, Kevin McGrew, 2-5-2010 <br />
  60. 60. Comparing global IQ score compositions from two different IQ test batteries (WAIS-IV & WJ III)<br />
  61. 61. Comparing IQ’s from special purpose and comprehensive test batteries <br />Broad CHC cognitive <br />ability domains<br />Gc = comprehension-knowledge<br />Gv = visual-spatial processing<br />Gs = processing speed<br />Ga = auditory processing<br />Gsm = Short-term memory<br />Gf = fluid reasoning<br />Glr = long-term storage/retrieval<br />Gq = quantitative knowledge<br />IQ Test CHC DNA Fingerprint comparison of proportional coverage<br />of broad CHC ability domains for BAT-R and TONI-2<br />© Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP) llc Kevin McGrew, 2-6-2010<br />
  62. 62. CHC analysis of select commonly used neuropsychological tests and test batteries<br />This is preliminary “work in progress”<br />I am NOT a neuropsychologist – looking for feedback and expertise to refine<br />Goal is to demonstrate/model a “mode of thinking & process” for NP’s to apply CHC theory to their assessments<br /><ul><li>Time constraints makes it impossible to cover all the major NP tests and batteries commonly used.</li></li></ul><li>Trail Making Tests: CHC task-analysis and CHC-grounded follow-up testing example<br />
  63. 63. TMT: Common neuropsychological interpretations/hypothesis viewed with CHC lens (First cut CHC thoughts)<br /><ul><li>Cognitive processing speed (Gs)
  64. 64. Psychomotor (fine) speed, dexterity (Gps)
  65. 65. Visual scanning, visual search (Gv-SS)
  66. 66. Attention-sustained visual, attention-shifting (AC)
  67. 67. EF- executive control, cognitive flexibility, inhibition-disinhibition ( )</li></li></ul><li>Hoelzle(2008) has done (albeit on a smaller scale) for neuropsychological datasets what Carroll (1993) did in his seminal EFA of cognitive ability datasets<br />This served as the starting point for the current NP-CHC linkage work<br />But, there are some caveats re: Hoelzel analyses due to constraints of secondary data analysis (I went beyond and “tweaked” his conclusions)<br /><ul><li> Insufficient markers of some CHC domains – factors could not emerge (results in some amalgam factors)
  68. 68. Lack of indicators of CHC domains of Gp, Gps, Go, Gh, Gk</li></li></ul><li>(Hoelzle, 2008)<br />
  69. 69. (Hoelzle, 2008)<br />77 separate EFA secondary analysis reported !!!!!!<br />
  70. 70. Hoelzle (2008) aprioriCHC task analysis hypotheses: TMT (Trail Making Test) example<br />Gsm<br />Gf<br />Gs<br />
  71. 71. Hoelzle (2008) EFA secondary analysis summary of five datasets meeting criteria that included TMT test(s)<br />
  72. 72. Gs<br />Glr<br />Hoelzle (2008) EFA secondary analysis summaries of datasets that included TMT test(s)<br />Glr<br />Gs<br />
  73. 73. Gs<br />Gsm,Ga?<br />Gf<br />Gf,Gv,Gs<br />Glr<br />Hoelzle (2008) EFA secondary analysis summaries of datasets that included TMT test(s)<br />
  74. 74. Gh,Gv/Gf,Gs ?<br />Gc<br />?<br />Gf<br />Gps<br />Hoelzle (2008) EFA secondary analysis summaries of datasets that included TMT test(s)<br />
  75. 75. Hoelzle (2008) empirical EFA-based CHC conclusions: TMT test<br />Primarily Gs<br />Gs<br />
  76. 76. Neuropsych. Test-CHC Analysis Summary: Trail Making Test<br />( ©Institute for Applied Psychometrics, Kevin McGrew, 9-14-10)<br />
  77. 77. Trail Making Test (TMT) CHC Analysis Summary (© K. McGrew 9-13-10 Rev.)<br />g<br />KM<br />A3<br />Gq<br />LD<br />K0<br />VL<br />LS<br />K1<br />K2<br />LA<br />A5<br />CM<br />OP<br />MY<br />KL<br />Gc<br />Acquired Knowledge<br />RC<br />SG<br />V<br />RD<br />CZ<br />RS<br />WA<br />EU<br />Grw<br />PC<br />US<br />UR<br />U3<br />UM<br />UK<br />UL<br />U1/9<br />U8<br />U6<br />U5<br />UA/T/U<br />UP<br />Ga<br />I<br />RG<br />RP<br />RE<br />RQ<br />Gf<br />Cognitive Operations<br />Vz<br />SR<br />MV<br />CS<br />SS<br />CF<br />PI<br />LE<br />IL<br />PN<br />IM<br />Gv<br />M6<br />MA<br />L0<br />MM<br />FE<br />FI<br />FF<br />FX<br />FO<br />SP<br />OP<br />FW<br />NA<br />FA<br />Glr<br />Gsm<br />MS<br />MW<br />R9<br />N<br />P<br />Gs<br />Cognitive Efficiency<br />Other/new<br />R1<br />R2<br />R4<br />R7<br />Gt<br />?<br />
  78. 78. Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test (ROCF): CHC task-analysis and possible CHC-grounded follow-up testing example<br />
  79. 79. ROCF: Common neuropsychological interpretations/hypothesis viewed via CHC lens: (First cut CHC thoughts)<br /><ul><li> Planning, organizational skills, and prob. solving strategies (EF, Gf, Gsm-MW)
  80. 80. Visual memory (Gv-MV)
  81. 81. Visual perceptual abilities (Gv-CS,MV,SS)
  82. 82. Visual-spatial/constructional abilities (Gv-SR,Vz,IM; Gp)
  83. 83. Motor ability (Gp)
  84. 84. Episodic memory function (Glr-M6, MA)
  85. 85. Incidental (vs intentional) learning (Glr-L1)
  86. 86. Copy component (Gv, Gp)
  87. 87. Recall (immediate, delayed) component (Glr-M6)</li></ul>[Not including the “recognition memory” procedure in this presenation]<br />
  88. 88. Neuropsych. Test-CHC Analysis Summary: ROCF Test<br />( ©Institute for Applied Psychometrics, Kevin McGrew, 9-14-10)<br />
  89. 89. Neuropsych. Test-CHC Analysis Summary: ROCF Test<br />( ©Institute for Applied Psychometrics, Kevin McGrew, 9-14-10)<br />
  90. 90. ROCF CHC Analysis Summary ( © K. McGrew 9-13-10 Rev.)<br />g<br />KM<br />A3<br />Gq<br />LD<br />K0<br />VL<br />LS<br />K1<br />K2<br />LA<br />A5<br />CM<br />OP<br />MY<br />KL<br />Gc<br />Acquired Knowledge<br />RC<br />SG<br />V<br />RD<br />CZ<br />RS<br />WA<br />EU<br />Grw<br />PC<br />US<br />UR<br />U3<br />UM<br />UK<br />UL<br />U1/9<br />U8<br />U6<br />U5<br />UA/T/U<br />UP<br />Ga<br />I<br />RG<br />RP<br />RE<br />RQ<br />Gf<br />Cognitive Operations<br />Vz<br />SR<br />MV<br />CS<br />SS<br />CF<br />PI<br />LE<br />IL<br />PN<br />IM<br />Gv<br />M6<br />MA<br />L0<br />MM<br />FE<br />FI<br />FF<br />FX<br />FO<br />SP<br />OP<br />FW<br />NA<br />FA<br />Glr<br />Gsm<br />MS<br />MW<br />R9<br />N<br />P<br />Gs<br />Cognitive Efficiency<br />Other/new<br />R1<br />R2<br />R4<br />R7<br />Gt<br />
  91. 91. CHC analysis of commonly used neuropsychological test batteries: Wechsler Memory Scales example<br />
  92. 92. Neuropsych. Test Battery -CHC Analysis Summary: WMS-III/IV Test<br />( ©Institute for Applied Psychometrics, Kevin McGrew, 9-14-10)<br />
  93. 93. Neuropsych. Test Battery -CHC Analysis Summary: WMS-III/IV Test<br />( ©Institute for Applied Psychometrics, Kevin McGrew, 9-14-10)<br />
  94. 94. Neuropsych. Test Battery -CHC Analysis Summary: WMS-III/IV Test<br />( ©Institute for Applied Psychometrics, Kevin McGrew, 9-14-10)<br />
  95. 95. WMS-III/IV CHC Analysis Summary (K. McGrew 9-13-10 Rev.)<br />g<br />KM<br />A3<br />Gq<br />LD<br />K0<br />VL<br />LS<br />K1<br />K2<br />LA<br />A5<br />CM<br />OP<br />MY<br />KL<br />Gc<br />Acquired Knowledge<br />RC<br />SG<br />V<br />RD<br />CZ<br />RS<br />WA<br />EU<br />Grw<br />PC<br />US<br />UR<br />U3<br />UM<br />UK<br />UL<br />U1/9<br />U8<br />U6<br />U5<br />UA/T/U<br />UP<br />Ga<br />I<br />RG<br />RP<br />RE<br />RQ<br />Gf<br />Cognitive Operations<br />Vz<br />SR<br />MV<br />CS<br />SS<br />CF<br />PI<br />LE<br />IL<br />PN<br />IM<br />Gv<br />M6<br />MA<br />L0<br />MM<br />FE<br />FI<br />FF<br />FX<br />FO<br />SP<br />OP<br />FW<br />NA<br />FA<br />Glr<br />Gsm<br />MS<br />MW<br />R9<br />N<br />P<br />Gs<br />Cognitive Efficiency<br />Other/new<br />R1<br />R2<br />R4<br />R7<br />Gt<br />
  96. 96. This is research/work in progress: Suggested research that needs to be explored and integrated. Go from here to……………..<br />
  97. 97. The WJ III (AUS Adaptation) is an ideal battery for following up NP assessment results when the focus is on:<br />(a) disentangling the different mixtures of multiple CHC abilities commonly found in NP tests or,<br /> (b) conducting more in-depth focused (confirmatory?) assessment of NP identified CHC abilities of concern<br />Next slide shows summary of broad and narrow CHC abilities measured by the WJ III<br />Note: Conflict of interest disclosure<br />
  98. 98. WJ III (Stnd+Ext Batteries) CHC Analysis Summary (K. McGrew 9-13-10 Rev.)<br />g<br />[Note. g (GIA) score does not include tests from Gq or Grw]<br />KM<br />A3<br />Gq<br />LD<br />K0<br />VL<br />LS<br />K1<br />K2<br />LA<br />A5<br />CM<br />OP<br />MY<br />KL<br />Gc<br />Acquired Knowledge<br />RC<br />SG<br />V<br />RD<br />CZ<br />RS<br />WA<br />EU<br />Grw<br />PC<br />US<br />UR<br />U3<br />UM<br />UK<br />UL<br />U1/9<br />U8<br />U6<br />U5<br />UA/T/U<br />UP<br />Ga<br />I<br />RG<br />RP<br />RE<br />RQ<br />Gf<br />Cognitive Operations<br />Vz<br />SR<br />MV<br />CS<br />SS<br />CF<br />PI<br />LE<br />IL<br />PN<br />IM<br />Gv<br />M6<br />MA<br />L0<br />MM<br />FE<br />FI<br />FF<br />FX<br />FO<br />SP<br />OP<br />FW<br />NA<br />FA<br />Glr<br />Gsm<br />MS<br />MW<br />R9<br />N<br />P<br />Gs<br />Cognitive Efficiency<br />Other/new<br />R1<br />R2<br />R4<br />R7<br />Gt<br />
  99. 99. “ 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”<br />Meyer et al. (2001). Psychological testing and psychological assessment. American Psychologist, February<br />
  100. 100. “ If you give a monkey a stradivarius violin and you get bad music……..you don’t blame the violin”<br />McGrew (circa 1986)<br />
  101. 101.
  102. 102. 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)<br />Content/stimulus dimension<br />Language (aud.-verb.)<br />Numerical/quant.<br />Somatasensory<br />Visual-figural<br />Olfactory<br />?: Is the low-how cog. complexity continuum simply a continuous representation of the Type 1/I processing distinction ?<br />Cognitive knowledge <br />domains/systems<br />Cognitive operations<br />Type II<br />Processing<br />Cognitive control<br />High<br />Abilty domain dimension<br />Cognitive efficiency<br />Sensory functions<br />Low<br />Type I<br />Processing<br />Motor functions<br />Cognitve complexity <br />dimension<br />Note: CHC taxonomy is embedded in the ability domain dimension (see prior slides) <br />
  103. 103. Iteration 2:<br />Hypothesized CHC-based<br />Intelligence model<br />Plus mapping of common neuropsych. measurement domainsto hypothesized model<br />Kevin McGrew<br />8-18-2010<br />Lets look at the pieces one by one – blow them up<br />
  104. 104.
  105. 105. [Note. Empirical support for this three-way Gf breakdown will be presented in Saturday’s keynote address (Beyond CHC) ]<br />
  106. 106.
  107. 107.
  108. 108. Motor functions (including speed)-Expressive across domains<br />

×