The WJ IV and Beyond CHC Theory: Kevin McGrew's NASP mini-skills workshop

The WJ IV Tests of Cognitive Ability &
Beyond CHC Theory
(NASP 2015 Mini-skills workshop)
Kevin S. McGrew, PhD.
Institute for Applied Psychometrics
&
University of Minnesota
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15

• Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP)-Director
• University of Minnesota - Visiting Professor (Educ Psych)
• Interactive Metronome - Director of Research and Science
(External Consultant) *
• Darhma Berkmana Foundation (YDB; Indonesia) –
Intelligence expert for development of first Indonesian
CHC-based intelligence battery for children
* Conflict of interest disclosure: Financial relationship and interest in IM; Coauthor
of WJ III and WJ IV (royalty interest)
Kevin S McGrew, PhD
Affiliations and Disclosures

Beyond CHC Theory: Session Outline
1. Big picture overview: Conceptual, theoretical, organizational, and
design principles behind the WJ IV COG
2. Show and tell: The new tests and the WJ IV COG clusters
3. “Dare to compare”--“regress for success:” Intracognitive variations and
PSW Gf-Gc composite hybrid comparison procedures
4. Breaking Bad: The WJ IV COG/OL table of cognitive elements
5. “In god we trust…all others must show data:”—select COG tech. info.

John Horn, compared the process of classifying and
categorizing human abilities and intelligence to
“slicing smoke”. (Horn, 1991)

A fundamental limitation of any theory built on a rectilinear system of
factors is that it is not of a form that well describes natural phenomena. It
is thus unlikely to be fully adequate. It is a system that can accurately
describe rectangular structures built by humans…but not the rounded and
irregular structures of mother nature. The phenomena of nature are not
usually well described by the linear equations of a Cartesian coordinate
system….The equations that describe the out structure and convolutions of
brains must be parabolas, cycloids, cissoids, spirals, foliums [sic]
exponentials, hyperboles, and the like. (p. 84)

g
General
(stratum I)
The CHC taxonomy of
cognitive abilities –
The three levels
(stratum)Narrow
(stratum III)
Broad
(stratum II)
Gf Gc Gwm
Glr Gv Ga Gs
Gc

Gf
Gc Gwm
Glr
Gv
Ga
Gs
Gq
Grw
g
I am going to be your guide for a
“walk in the clouds” of human
cognitive abilities
The CHC model will be our map
The WJ IV COG (and OL)
batteries will be our measures

1. Big picture overview: Conceptual, theoretical, organizational, and design
principles behind the WJ IV COG
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics;
Kevin McGrew 1-18-15

Intelligence
Testing Related
Research:
Levels of
theoretical
reductionism and
explanation
White matter tract
organization,
integrity & efficiency
-rate of neural oscillations
-neural synchronization
-Reaction-time and temporal g
-ERP’s (e.g., ABR)
PMA1
T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9T1 T12T10 T11
PMA2 PMA3 PMA4 …etc
…etc
G1 G2 G3
…etc
g ?
(Consensus Cattell-Horn-Carroll Hierarchical Three-Stratum Model)
-Human Connectome
-Functional brain networks
(Bressler & Menon, 2010)
-“Rich club” network hubs
-P-FIT model
(Adapted from conceptual distinctions
of Earl Hunt, 2011)

What is the current status of the CHC taxonomy?
How can this information be used to create or
revise WJ IV tests?
Does the WJ IV data analyses suggest additions or
revisions to CHC theory?
Key questions

The WJ IV COG psychometric
model

Key questions
How can
research at these
levels inform
interpretation of
the WJ IV
psychometric
model indicators
(i.e., the tests)?

Time for the WJ IV COG new test “show and tell”
The “new kids (tests) on the block (COG)”

Oral
Vocabulary
General
Information
Number
Series
Concept
Formation
Verbal
Attention
Numbers
Reversed
Story Recall
Visual-Aud
Learning
Visualization
Picture
Recognition
Letter-Pat
Match
Pair
Cancellation
Phon
Processing
Nonword
Repetition
Obj-Num
Sequencing
Analysis-
Synthesis
Memory for
Words
Number-Pat
Match
The final 18 WJ IV COG tests by CHC domain
Gc Glr Gv Ga GsGwmGf
WJ III test
New test
WJ III COG, DS or ACH
test with new twist

COG Test 2: Number Series
• Was in WJ III Diagnostic Supplement
• Gf-RQ (Quantitative Reasoning)
• Not a “controlled learning” test as are Concept Formation (Gf-I)
and Analysis-Synthesis (Gf-RG)
• More Gf “in the wild” – without examiner provided scaffolding
• Extensive history as a premier Gf test in the psychometric
measurement of intelligence
• High in cognitive complexity and g. Best single test predictor of
achievement. Best indicator of Gf factor.
• In GIA, BIA, Gf-Gc Composite, Gf, Gf-Ext, Quantitative Reasoning
(RQ), and one Math Aptitude clusters.

COG Test 3: Verbal Attention
• Measure of Gwm (working memory-WM; attentional control-AC)
• More ecological “real world” valid measure of working memory
• High in cognitive complexity and g. Within Gwm, the most
cognitively complex, one of best indicators of Gwm factor, and best
predictor of achievement
• In GIA, BIA, Gwm, Gwm3, Cognitive Efficiency, and one Reading
and 1 Written Language Aptitude clusters.

Low
Degree of
Attentional
Control (AC)
Memory for
Words
Sentence
Repetition
Memory
Span (MS)
Tests
High
Degree of
Cognitive Complexity ( Cog. Load)
Working
Memory
Capacity (WM)
Tests
Numbers
Reversed
Understanding
Directions
Object-Number
Sequencing
Verbal
Attention
HighLow
© Institute for
Applied
Psychometrics;
Kevin McGrew
1-18-15
Via multiple regression,
the other five Gwm
tests (at ages 6-19)
predicted (R=.70) 49 %
of Verbal Attention’s
score variance. After
taking into account
Verbal Attention’s
reliability,
approximately 35% of
Verbal Attention’s
reliable score variance
is not accounted for by
the other five Gwm
tests

There has been an explosion of research on auditory abilities
since Carroll’s (1993) seminal work (Schneider & McGrew,
2012). A wide-ranging collection of Ga characteristics have
been related to disorders of reading, speech, and language. For
example, Ga abilities are now recognized as playing a pivotal
scaffolding role in the development of language and general
cognitive abilities (Conway, Pisoni, & Kronenberger, 2009).

Oral
Vocabulary
General
Information
Number
Series
Concept
Formation
Verbal
Attention
Numbers
Reversed
Story Recall
Visual-Aud
Learning
Visualization
Picture
Recognition
Letter-Pat
Match
Pair
Cancellation
Obj-Num
Sequencing
Analysis-
Synthesis
Memory for
Words
Number-Pat
Match
The final 18 WJ IV COG tests by CHC domain
Gc Glr Gv
Phon
Processing
Nonword
Repetition
Ga GsGwmGf
WJ III test
New test
test with new twist

COG Test 5: Phonological Processing
• Ga (PC) / Glr (LA/FW)
•3 subtests (Word Access; Word Fluency; Substitution
• Measures three aspects of speech sound processing that requires the
efficient construction of sound-based lexical representations
• High in cognitive complexity and g. Best single Ga test predictor of
achievement. High loading on Ga and secondary low loading on Gc
(accessing the lexicon). Also loaded on narrow LA factor in
broard+narrow bottom-up CFA models.
• In GIA, Ga, and all reading and writing scholastic aptitude clusters

Examinee listens to a nonsense word and then must repeat
the word exactly.
Requires temporary storage of phonological segments in
immediate awareness.
Significant body of research has found such tasks to be
significantly related to (and be possible “markers”of) reading
disabilities, dyslexia and SLI (specific language impairment)
COG Test 12: Nonword Repetition

COG Test 4: Letter-Pattern Matching
• Measure of Gs (perceptual speed) and orthographic processing
• This speeded test (all WJ IV speeded tests) is based on a new rate-
based method of scaling the scores that eliminates the need for bonus
points
• Within Gs, it matches Number Pattern Matching in g, Gs factor
loading, and prediction of achievement. Is more cognitively complex
than Number Pattern Matching
• In GIA, Gs, Perceptual Speed (P), Cog. Eff. and Cog. clusters

COG Test 7: Visualization
• Measure of Gv-Visualization (Vz)
•Visualization consists of two subtests that each measure Gv-Vz
(visualization) via tasks that vary on task complexity and degree
of “minds eye” (mental rotation) manipulations
• Within Gv, highest on cognitive complexity, g, Gv factor, and
prediction of achievement
• In GIA, Gv and both Math Aptitude clusters

OL Test 3: Segmentation
• Ga (PC)
• Examinee listens to words and identifies word parts
• In OL Phonetic Coding (PC) cluster
• Highest loading test on Ga factor across all ages
• A moderate measure of g and predictor of ach. across all ages;
much more so (and more cognitively complex) than Sound
Blending.
• Such tasks have been reported to be strong predictors of early
reading (Bouwmeester et al, 2011; Geuden & Sandra, 2003)

1.Big picture overview: Conceptual, theoretical, organizational,
and design principles behind the WJ IV COG

Gc Gwm Gs Ga Glr GvGf
Clusters available from
Standard Cognitive easel
(10 tests)
(#) = # tests
Cognitive
Efficiency (2)
Other clusters available by
combining Standard Cognitive
tests with select tests from
Extended Cognitive easel (8 tests)
Cognitive
Efficiency (4)
Aud. Proc.
(2)
LT Ret.
(2)
Visual
Proc. (2)
Cog. Proc.
Speed(2)
Fld. Reas.
(2)
Cmp.
Knw.(2)
ST Work.
Mem. (2)
General Intellectual Ability – g (7)
Brief Intellectual Ability (3)
Gf+Gc
Composite (4)

Scholastic Aptitude Clusters (each a mix of 4 CHC abilities) 
 New
Aud. Proc.
(2)
LT Ret.
(2)
Visual
Proc. (2)
Cog. Proc.
Speed(2)
Fld. Reas.
(2)
Cmp.
Knw.(2)
ST Work.
Mem. (2)
ST Work.
Mem. (3)
Cmp.
Knw.(3)
Fld. Reas.
(3)
 
Number
Facility (2)
Perc.
Speed(2)
Qnt. Reas.
(2)



g
Gf Gc Gwm
Glr Gv Ga Gs
Gc
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP) Dr Kevin McGrew 4-11-14

Five primary design principles for WJ IV COG GIA
The WJ IV COG GIA cluster tests should:
1. Be the best factor indicators of each CHC broad domain
2. Be the best predictors of achievement from each CHC broad domain
3. Be the most cognitively complex indicators from each CHC broad
domain
4. Be the best measures of g (general intelligence) from each
CHC broad domain
5. Collectively should have a relatively equal balance of type of stimulus
characteristics (verbal, numeric, figural)

WJ IV COG general ability clusters
BIA cluster
General
Information
Concept
Formation
Gf-Gc cluster
WJ III test
New test
test with new twist
Oral
Vocabulary
Number
Series
Verbal
Attention
Story Recall Visualization
Letter-Pat
Match
Phon
Processing
GIA cluster g

WJ IV COG GIA cluster
.77 .76 .68 .63 .60 .75 .61
GIA test g-loadings (PCA: ages 6-19)
Oral
Vocabulary
Number
Series
Verbal
Attention
Letter-Pat
Match
Phon
Processing
GIA cluster g

WJ IV COG GIA cluster
Oral
Vocabulary
Number
Series
Verbal
Attention
Letter-Pat
Match
Phon
Processing
GIA cluster g
.18 .17 .14 .12 .12 .17 .11
Median test g-weights for GIA cluster

g
Gf Gwm
Glr Gv Ga Gs
Gc

Oral
Vocabulary
General
Information
Number
Series
Concept
Formation
Verbal
Attention
Numbers
Reversed
Story Recall
Visual-Aud
Learning
Visualization
Picture
Recognition
Letter-Pat
Match
Pair
Cancellation
Phon
Processing
Nonword
Repetition
The WJ IV Cognitive CHC broad ability clusters

Oral
Vocabulary
General
Information
Number
Series
Concept
Formation
Verbal
Attention
Numbers
Reversed
The WJ IV Cognitive CHC “extended” broad ability clusters
Picture
Vocabulary
Analysis-
Synthesis
Obj-Num
Sequencing
Oral Language battery

The primary action is at the narrow ability level

The WJ IV narrow CHC ability clusters
Quantitative
Reas (RQ)
Speed of
Lex Access (LA)
Phonetic
Coding (PC)
Perceptual
Speed (P)
Number
Series
Letter-Pat
Match
Picture
Vocabulary
Picture
Vocabulary
Sound
Blending
Segmentation
Retrieval
Fluency
Rapid Picture
Naming
Analysis-
Synthesis
Aud Mem
Span (MS)
Memory for
Words
Number-Pat
Match
Oral
Vocabulary
Vocabulary
(VL)

Number-Pat
Match
The WJ IV COG clinical clusters and one more CHC
narrow ability cluster
Number Facility (N)
Numbers
Reversed
Gf Glr Gv Ga GsGwmGc

The WJ IV narrow CHC ability clusters
(those available when OL battery used)
Speed of
Lex Access (LA)
Phonetic
Coding (PC)
Picture
Vocabulary
Picture
Vocabulary
Sound
Blending
Segmentation
Retrieval
Fluency
Rapid Picture
Naming
Aud Mem
Span (MS)
Memory for
Words
Oral
Vocabulary
Vocabulary
(VL)
Oral Comp
Understanding
Directions Listening
Ability (LS)
Gc Glr Gv Ga GsGwmGc

Perc Spd
P (2)
Qnt Reas
RQ (2)
Vocab
VL (2)
List Abl
LS (2)
AMemSp
MS (2)
Sp Lex Ac
MS (2)
Num Fac
N (2)
Phon Cod
PC (2)
Narrow CHC ability clusters (8)
Aud Proc
(2)
LT Ret
(2)
Visual
Proc (2)
Cog Proc
Speed(2)
Fld Reas
(2)
Cmp
Knw(2)
ST Work
Mem (2)
ST Work
Mem (3)
Cmp
Knw(3)
Fld Reas
(3) Broad CHC ability clusters (10)
Gf Gs Ga Glr GvGwmGc
WJ IV CHC broad and narrow ability clusters

Gc Gwm Gs Ga Glr GvGf
WJ IV Scholastic Aptitude Cluster Organization
Visualization
(Vz)
Numbers
Reversed
(WM)
Oral
Vocabulary
(LD/VL)
Analysis-
Synthesis
(RG/RQ)
Pair
Cancellation
(P/EF)
Visualization
(Vz)
Oral
Vocabulary
(LD/VL)
Number
Series
(RQ)
Num Pattern
Matching
(P)
Phonological
Processing
(PC)
Oral
Vocabulary
(LV/VL)
Verbal
Attention
(WM)
Num Pattern
Matching
(P)
Phonological
Processing
(PC)
Oral
Vocabulary
(LD/VL)
Verbal
Attention
(WM)
Num Pattern
Matching
(P)
Phonological
Processing
(PC)
Oral
Vocabulary
(LV/VL)
Story
Recall
(MM)
Num Pattern
Matching
(P)
Phonological
Processing
(PC)
Oral
Vocabulary
(LD/VL)
Concept
Formation
(I)
Reading
Broad Reading
Reading Comp
Reading Comp-Ext
Reading Fluency
Reading Rate
Basic Rdg Skills
Writing
Broad Writing
Written Expression
Basic Writing Skills
Math
Broad Math
Math Calc Skills
Math Prob Solving
WJ IV Ach Clusters
Grw/Gq domain general
Grw domain specific
Gq domain specific

One WJ IV design objective was to
use the most contemporary
measurement model of an evolving
CHC theory of human cognitive
abilities
“Beyond CHC” – CHC plus contemporary
neurocognitive and information processing
research

Evolution of CHC Theory in the WJ IV
•WJ (1977): Scientific-Empirical (pragmatic)
•WJ-R (1989): Extended Cattell-Horn Gf-Gc Theory
•WJ III (2001): CHC Theory
•WJ IV (2014): Beyond CHC Theory

CHC Theory Described and Refined (v2.5)

Gsm has been renamed Gwm at the
round table of cognitive CHC abilities
During the past two decades, and the last decade in particular, cognitive neuroscience
has indicated that the more narrow Gsm definition was outdated and incorrect (Dehn,
2008).
Working memory refers to a dynamic, temporary storage system that allows information
to be held immediate awareness and be manipulated.
Working memory refers to individual differences in both the capacity (size) of primary
memory and to the efficiency of attentional control mechanisms that manipulate
information within primary memory.
Short-term memory refers to tasks that involve significant storage but only minimal
processing or manipulation.

Attentional Control (AC). The ability to focus on task-relevant stimuli and ignore task-irrelevant
stimuli. The ability to regulate intentionality and direct cognitive processing. Sometimes
referred to as spotlight or focal attention, focus, control of attention, executive controlled
attention or executive attention.
Memory for Sound Patterns (UM). Ability to retain (on a short-term basis) auditory codes such
as tones, tonal patterns, or speech sounds.
Speed of Lexical Access (LA). Ability to rapidly and fluently retrieve words from an individual's
lexicon; verbal efficiency or automaticity of lexical access.
Word Fluency (FW). Ability to rapidly produce words that share a phonological (e.g., fluency of
retrieval of words via a phonological cue) or semantic feature (e.g., fluency of retrieval of words
via a meaning-based representation). Also includes the ability to rapidly produce words that
share non-semantic features (e.g., fluency of retrieval of words starting with the letter “T”.
Proposed changes/additions to CHC
narrow ability taxonomy

The CHC abilities
of attentional
control (AC) and
speed of lexical
access (LA) (and
the WJ IV tests of
these abilities)
draw from these
three levels

Working Memory
Long-Term Memory
Storage Retrieval
Central
Executive
(Executive
functions or
control?
• Inhibit
•Shift
•Update
PerceptionSensation
Efficiency of Attentional Control = Working Memory
Capacity  Complex cognitive processing.
????
Focus of
Attention
Information processing
(mechanical models)

Central Executive
(Executive
functions or
control?
• Inhibit
•Shift
•Update
Working Memory
Focus of
attention
•Focus
•Attentional Control
•Working Memory
•Executive Functioning
Executive control theory
Hunt (2011) refers to
this as the working
memory—attention
complex
(mechanical models)
© Institute for Applied
Psychometrics, Dr. Kevin
S. McGrew, 012314

Attention
Motor Power,
Speed & Timing
(Gp,Gps)
(feedback loop)
Central Executive
Working Memory Capacity (WMC)
= Efficiency of Attentional Control
(AC)
Gs=Attentional Fluency
Learning (storage)
efficiency (Glr)
Retrieval fluency
(Glr)
Focus of
Attention
Short-Term Working Memory (Gwm)
Sensory & Perceptual
Systems
Gf = Complexity of Reasoning
within Working Memory
(feedback loop)
Beyond CHC Theory
Adapted from Schneider & McGrew
(2012, 2013)
Visual (Gv)
Auditory (Ga)
Tactile (Gh)
Kinesthetic
(Gk)
Olfactory (Go)
Motor
Control
(Note: e.g.., Gv, Ga, etc. are
not simple visual perceptual or
sensory processing but the
complexity of visual processing
that a person can handle)
Gt = Speed of
Elem.Perc.
Processing
Cognitive Processing Speed (Gs)
Acquired Knowledge Systems (aka, long-term memory)
Etc.
(what)
Etc.
(how)
Etc.
(what)
Etc.
(how)
Motor
Sequences
(what)
Motor
Sequences
(how)
Grw
(what)
Grw
(how)
Gc
(what)
Gc
(how)
Nonverbal
(e.g., motor)
Cognitive
Environmental
Input
Includes both tacit and
explicit knowledge systems;
declarative (what) and procedural
(how) knowledge
Cognitive
performance
Motor
performance
(mechanical models)
S. McGrew, 012314

The working memory-attentional complex system is a resource
limited (constrained) system: The information “bottleneck”
(mechanical models)

Motor Power,
Speed & Timing
(Gp,Gps)
(feedback loop)
Learning (storage)
efficiency (Glr)
Retrieval fluency
(Glr)
Sensory & Perceptual
Systems
(feedback loop)
Beyond CHC Theory
Adapted from Schneider & McGrew
(2012, 2013)
Visual (Gv)
Auditory (Ga)
Tactile (Gh)
Kinesthetic
(Gk)
Olfactory (Go)
Motor
Control
(Note: e.g.., Gv, Ga, etc. are
not simple visual perceptual or
sensory processing but the
complexity of visual processing
that a person can handle)
Gt = Speed of
Elem.Perc.
Processing
Acquired Knowledge Systems (aka, long-term memory)
Etc.
(what)
Etc.
(how)
Etc.
(what)
Etc.
(how)
Motor
Sequences
(what)
Motor
Sequences
(how)
Grw
(what)
Grw
(how)
Gc
(what)
Gc
(how)
Nonverbal
(e.g., motor)
Cognitive
Environmental
Input
Cognitive
performance
Motor
performance
(mechanical models)
S. McGrew, 012314

(Parameters are median values across 6 WJ IV age groups: Broad+narrow bottom-up model)
Lexical
Access
(LA)
Gc
Gc tests
.43
Gwm
Gwm tests
.48
Retrieval
Fluency
.71
Phonological
Processing
.40
Ga
Rapid Picture
Naming
.41
Gs
Speed of Lexical Access
(LA). Ability to rapidly and
fluently retrieve words from
an individual's lexicon;
verbal efficiency or
automaticity of lexical
access.
Gc/Gwm (broad) influenced Speed of Lexical
Access (LA) narrow factor

Auditory Processing (Ga) abilities
should no longer be considered the
Rodney Dangerfield of CHC abilities
School psych. and SLD have had a myopic “lamp post-search ”
blinder focus on only one part of the very broad domain of Ga
There has been an explosion of research (since Carroll’s 1993
treatise) that has identified potentially new important and
cognitively complex Ga narrow abilities

Remember that there was a paucity of Ga factor
studies when Carroll completed his 1993 treatise

The WJ IV Auditory Processing (Ga) cluster is not
your father's Ga measure
WJ IV still has the Oldsmobile Ga (Phonetic
Coding) in OL: COG now has more cognitively
complex Ga measures
The WJ IV has taken a broader
contemporary view of the domain of Ga

Auditory Processing (Ga) abilities, when properly
measured, should have a prominent chair at the
roundtable of cognitive CHC abilities

Loadings on
first unrotated
common factor
Communality
Estimates
Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI) 0.809 0.654
Auditory Processing (Ga) 0.804 0.646
Fluid Reasoning (Gf) 0.804 0.646
Perceptual Reasoning Index (PRI) 0.800 0.639
Comprehension-Knowledge (Gc) 0.779 0.607
Short-Term Work. Memory (Gwm) 0.764 0.584
Working Memory Index (WMI) 0.749 0.562
Long-Term Retrieval (Glr) 0.683 0.466
Visual Processing (Gv) 0.604 0.365
Processing Speed Index (PSI) 0.569 0.323
Cog. Processing Speed (Gs) 0.537 0.288
1-factor (unrotated) common-factor solution for WJ IV
COG / WISC-IV composite scores (n=173)

© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin
McGrew 1-18-15

-2 -1 0 1 2
-2
-1
0
1
2
GIA
GC
GF
GWM
GS
GA
GLR
GV
VCI
PRI WMI
PSI
2 MDS solution for WJ IV / WISC-IV
composite and g-scores (n=173)


•The WJ IV GIA score is as good
(better?) a measure of general
intelligence (g) as the WISC-IV FS
IQ when defined by g-loadings
and MDS cognitive complexity
analysis.
• The WJ IV Ga cluster is a
measure of complex cognitive
abilities; comparable to WJ IV &
WISC-IV Gf/PRI composites.
•The WJ IV measures cognitive
abilities not represented in the
WISC-IV (Ga, Glr, and possibly Gv).
Measures closer to the center of
the radex of more cognitively
complex
FSIQ


One WJ IV design objective was to increase
the cognitive complexity requirements for
selected tests and clusters to provide greater
ecological validity and interpretive relevance
of the measures.

CHC factor breadth
Degree of g-loading
Complicated
(Does not
necessarily
equal)
Factorial complexity
Cognitive complexity

• Increase the information processing demands of the tests
within a specific narrow CHC domain.
• Not to be confused with factorial complexity
• Design tests that place greater demands on:
• Cognitive information processing (cognitive load)
• Greater allocation of key cognitive resources (working
memory or attentional control)
• The involvement of more cognitive control or executive
functions
WJ IV cognitive complexity design approach
based on work of Lohman & Larkin (2011)

Approach 1. Increasing the cognitive complexity
of a test is often accomplished by making the test
a mixed measure of more than one narrow CHC
ability (factorially complex mixed CHC measures)
One design objective in the WJ IV was to increase
the cognitive complexity requirements for
selected tests and clusters to provide greater
ecological validity and interpretive relevance of
the measures.

Most contemporary CHC designed individual tests have focused on
developing relatively pure measures of each cognitive ability (mental pulley)
Gf Gwm Ga Gv
Gc Gs Glr
Analogy: Think of general intelligence (g) as a system of relatively
independent cognitive abilities (relatively construct “pure” pulleys)
working together to deal with a specific cognitive task load

In this approach a test is designed to be a mixed measure of two
(or more) cognitive abilities (mental pulleys; Gf + Gv)
Gf + Gv
Gf + Gv Gwm Gs Ga Glr Gc
Approach 1 to developing cognitively complex tests: Construct
factorially complex measures (a system of pulleys from 2 or
more domain functions working in combination).

Gf + Gv
Gf + Gwm + Gc + Gq Ga Glr Gv
Approach 1 example
Wechsler Arithmetic test

One design objective in the WJ IV was to increase the
cognitive complexity requirements for selected tests and
clusters to provide greater ecological validity and
interpretive relevance of the measures.
Approach 2. A second approach is to increase the complexity of information
processing demands of the tests within a specific narrow CHC domain (Lohman &
Larkin, 2011; McGrew, 2012). This second form of cognitive complexity, not to be
confused with factorial complexity, places greater demands on cognitive
information processing (cognitive load), requires greater allocation of key cognitive
resources (working memory or attentional control), and invokes the involvement
of more cognitive control or executive functions (Arend, Colom, Botella,
Contreras, Rubio, & Santacreu, 2003; Jensen, 2011; Lohman & Larkin, 2011;
Marshalek, Lohman, & Snow; 1983). This second approach to increasing test
cognitive complexity was a primary design principle for the WJ IV.

Ga Gv Gwm Gs Gf Glr Gc
Approach 2 is to increase the complexity of information processing demands of
the tests within a specific CHC cognitive functional domain. Tasks are still as
relatively pure a measure of the CHC domain as possible but there is a deliberate
increase in the number of “mini-pulleys” (cognitive information component
complexity) that work together within the CHC domain. This was the primary
approach used for certain WJ IV tests.

The WJ IV COG is not your father’s intelligence test!
The WJ IV COG GIA is a much more cognitively complex (and
high g) measure of intelligence
How did we do this?
What evidence do we have to support this conclusion?

• Which 7 tests should be combined for the GIA (g) cluster?
• Which 2 tests from each CHC factor domain should be combined for
the 7 CHC factor clusters?
Two
major
COG
design
questions

GIA -
Standard
GIAOral
Vocabulary
General
Information
Number
Series
Concept
Formation
Verbal
Attention
Numbers
Reversed
Story Recall
Visual-Aud
Learning
Visualization
Picture
Recognition
Letter-Pat.
Match.
Pair
Canc.
Phon.
Processing
Nonword
Repetition
Primary WJ III and WJ IV COG tests and Clusters
Tests in WJ IV
COG clusters
Tests in WJ III
COG Clusters
WJ IV GIA
WJ III GIA-Standard
* Visual Matching is renamed Number-Pattern
Matching in WJ IV
Comparison of composition of primary
WJ III and WJ IV COG CHC and GIA clusters
(WJ III Spatial
Relations is half of
WJ IV Visualization)
(WJ IV Oral Vocab. was
part of WJ III Verbal
Comp.)
Auditory
Attention
Decision
Speed
Analysis-
Synthesis
Retrieval
Fluency
Spatial
Relations
Verbal
Comp.
Memory for
Words
Sound
Blending
Visual
Matching *
Gc Gwm GsGaGlr GvGf
g

WISC-IV WAIS-IV WPPSI-III KABC-II SB-5 DAS-II
FS IQ FS IQ FS IQ FCI FS IQ GCA
(n=174) (n=177) (n=99) (n=50) (n = 50) (n = 49)
WJ IV g-measures
General Intellectual Ability (GIA) 0.86 0.84 0.72 0.77 0.80 0.83
Brief Intellectual Ability (BIA) 0.83 0.74 0.76 0.79
Gf-Gc Composite 0.83 0.78 0.71 0.82
Select concurrent validity evidence: Correlations of WJ IV primary
COG g-scores with external measures
Conclusion: The WJ IV GIA, BIA and Gf-Gc composite clusters demonstrate
strong validity evidence as measures of general intelligence when the criterion
are the global composite/total scores from other major IQ batteries in the field
WJ III GIA other IQ score
correlations were from .67 to .76

Common factor
loadings
Communality
Estimates
ORLVOC 0.73 0.54
PHNPRO 0.71 0.51
OBJNUM 0.69 0.48
ORLCMP 0.67 0.45
SNDAWR 0.66 0.43
UNDDIR 0.64 0.41
VRBATN 0.63 0.40
CONFRM 0.63 0.40
PICVOC 0.63 0.39
MEMWRD 0.61 0.37
NUMSER 0.61 0.37
ANLSYN 0.59 0.35
NUMREV 0.59 0.35
VISUAL 0.58 0.34
SEGMNT 0.58 0.34
SENREP 0.58 0.34
GENINF 0.57 0.32
STYREC 0.56 0.32
NWDREP 0.55 0.31
RETFLU 0.54 0.30
LETPAT 0.53 0.28
SNDBLN 0.51 0.26
NUMPAT 0.50 0.25
VAL 0.49 0.24
RPCNAM 0.48 0.23
PAIRCN 0.47 0.22
PICREC 0.44 0.20
Single common
factor (g-factor)
extracted from 27
WJ IV / WISC-IV
tests (n=173)

Common factor
loadings
Communality
Estimates
ORLVOC 0.73 0.54
VISUAL 0.58 0.34
PHNPRO 0.71 0.51
SNDBLN 0.51 0.26
STYREC 0.56 0.32
VAL 0.49 0.24
VRBATN 0.63 0.40
NUMREV 0.59 0.35
CONFRM 0.63 0.40
NUMSER 0.61 0.37
LETPAT 0.53 0.28
NUMPAT 0.50 0.25
DK ?
DK ?
+25% -- A factor of 2.0 more
-03%
+03%
5 of the 7 corresponding
WJ IV GIA CHC tests
collectively share 41%
more variance with
psychometric g (than
the WJ III GIA tests)

• Which 7 tests should be combined for the GIA (g) cluster?
• Which 2 tests from each CHC factor domain should be combined for
the 7 CHC factor clusters?
Two
major
COG
design
questions
© Institute for
Applied
Psychometrics;
Kevin McGrew
1-18-15

The Cognitive tests were evaluated on the basis of four (of
five total) quantifiable COG design criteria
Data augmented by Siskel and Ebert informal rating system
Average CHC factor loadings
Average achievement correlation across domains
Average degree of g-loadings
Average degree of relative cognitive complexity




(Average across ages 6-90+)© Institute for Applied Psychometrics;

Comprehension – Knowledge
(Gc)
Language Dev.
(LD)
General Information
(K0)
Lexical Knowledge
(VL)
ORLVOC* GENINFPICVOC
 
* Test in GIA
Author/expert
CHC narrow factor
classifications
(Gc cluster)
(Voc. Cluster-
LD/VL)

Induction
(I)
General Sequential
Reasoning (RG)
Quantitative
Reasoning (RQ)
ANLSYNCONFRMNUMSER* (Gf cluster)
(Gf-Ext
cluster)
(Quantitative Reasoning Cluster-RQ)
* Test in GIA
Fluid Reasoning
(Gf)
Author/expert
CHC narrow
factor
classifications
    

Cognitive Processing Speed
(Gs)
Attentional
Control (AC)
Perceptual
Speed (P)
PAIRCNNUMPATLETPAT*
* Test in GIA
Short-Term Working
Memory (Gwm)
(Gs cluster)
(Perceptual Speed
cluster-P)
Author/expert
CHC narrow
factor
classifications
   

Short-Term Working
Memory (Gwm)
Work. Memory
Capacity (WM)
Memory Span
(MS)
Attentional Control
(AC)
MEMWRD
SENREP
(Auditory Memory
Span Cluster-MS)
OBJNUMVRBATN* NUMREV
* Test in GIA
(Gwm cluster)
(Gwm-Ext cluster)
Author/expert
CHC narrow
factor
classifications
  

Learning
Efficiency
Retrieval
Fluency
Long-Term Retrieval
(Glr)
* Test in GIA
VALSTREC* (Glr cluster)
Associative
Memory (MA)
Meaningful
Memory (MM)
Speed of Lexical
Access (LA)
RETFLURPCNAM (Speed
of Lexical
Access
cluster-LA)
Author/expert
CHC narrow
factor
classifications
  

Auditory
Processing (Ga)
Phonetic
Coding (PC)
NWDREPPHNPRO*
* Test in GIA
Short-Term Working
Memory (Gwm)
Memory for
Sound Patterns (UM)
SEGMNT SNDBLN
(Ga cluster)
(Phonetic Coding cluster-PC)
Author/expert
CHC narrow
factor
classifications
 
Memory Span
(MS)

Nonword
Repetition
(PC/UM-MS)
Phonological
Processing
(PC/Glr-LA)
Sound Awareness
(PC)
Sound Blending
(PC)
Segmentation
(PC)
Auditory
Processing (Ga)
Short Term
Wrk Mem (Gwm)
Most complex
Least complex
COG
OL
An auditory
processing
battery ?

Visual Processing
(Gv)
Visual Memory
(MV)
Visualization
(Vz)
* Test in GIA
PICRECVISUAL* (Gv cluster)
Author/expert
CHC narrow
factor
classifications
 

3. “Dare to compare”--“regress for success:” Intracognitive
variations and PSW Gf-Gc composite hybrid comparison
procedures

All WJ IV Comparison and variation
procedures are grounded in a
common statistical model

Note: All score distributions
represent real scores for all 9-13
year old norming subjects from
WJ IV
co-normed sample. Actual
prediction models vary by age
or grade (developmentally
shifting prediction models).
Note: The SD of predicted and
difference score distributions
are not 15. They would only be
15 if GIA/Brd. Rdg. correlation
was perfect (1.0).
Illustration of procedures used to develop ALL WJ IV variation/
comparison difference (standard score) norms (GIA-Broad Reading ACH example)
-
E
(minus)
B
Actual Broad Reading scores
in WJ IV norm data
40 80 120 160100 14060
-1 to +1
SD
SD = 15
A
General Intellectual
Ability (GIA) scores in WJ IV
norm data (predictor score)
408012016010014060
-1to+1
SD
SD=15
=
(equals)
F
Distribution of Actual-Predicted
GIA/Broad Reading Difference
Scores in WJ IV norm data
(SD of
difference
score
distribution
allows for
specification
& evaluation
of significant
S/W with SD
and PR
metrics)
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
-1 to +1
SD
SD = 10.8
D
Predicted (criterion)
Broad Reading scores in
WJ IV norm data
40 80 120 160100 14060
-1 to +1
SD
SD = 11.6

Comparison Options
• GIA/Achievement
• Scholastic Aptitude/Achievement
• Gf-Gc/Achievement/other cog.-ling. abilities
• Broad Oral Language/Achievement
• Academic Knowledge/Achievement
Five ability/achievement difference score procedures to
help compare ability to current levels of achievement
[Procedures account for regression-to-the mean (and how it
varies by age)]
(Third method PSW SLD models)

Variation Options
• Intra-cognitive based on COG Tests 1—7
• Intra-achievement
• Based on ACH Tests 1—6
• Based on Academic Skills, Academic Fluency, and
Academic Applications clusters
• Intra-oral language based on OL Tests 1—4
Four variation procedures to help document an
individual’s pattern of strengths and weaknesses.
Based on “core” tests in each battery

The WJ IV Gf-Gc comparison procedure has clear implications
for operationalizing this model
Common elements of third-method pattern of strength and
weakness (PSW) approach to SLD identification (Flanagan et al.)
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin
McGrew 06-18-14

Math
(Gq)
Reading
(Grw)
Writing
(Grw)
Other
CHC cog
abilities
Oral
Lang.
abilities
Possible
strength
and
weakness
target
domains
Conceptual summary of new WJ IV Gf-Gc strength and
weakness comparison procedure and options
These are perceptual/processing and
cognitive efficiency CHC abilities as
per Schneider and McGrew (2012)
Gf-Gc
Composite
(predictor)
Cattell’s “provincial powers”
(king and queen of intelligence)

GlrGsmGf
Gs Gt
General SpeedMemory
Domain-Independent General Capacities
Acquired Knowledge
Gkn
GqGrw
Gc Gp
Gh
Sensory
Sensory-Motor Domain-Specific Abilities
Motor
Parameters of Cognitive Efficiency
Ga
Go
Gv
Gk
Gps
Conceptual
Grouping
Functional Grouping
Proposed changes in functional and conceptual organization of
broad CHC ability domains (Schneider & McGrew, 2012)
These are perceptual/processing and
cognitive efficiency CHC abilities as
per Schneider and McGrew (2012)Cattell’s “provincial powers”
(king and queen of intelligence)

(Possible criterion or predicted
target scores)
Gf-Gc “hybrid” procedure
Predicted
Target Cluster
Score
Regression-based
prediction models
that account for
regression-to-the-
mean
Gf-Gc Composite
(Predictor score)
GcGf
WJ IV Gf-Gc cognitive
Ability cluster
Grw Gq
Brief Achievement
Academic Skills
Academic Fluency
Academic Applications
Broad Achievement
Reading
Brd. Rdg.
Rdg. Flu.
Bas. Rdg. Sk.
Rdg. Cmp.
(& Ext)
Rdg. Rate
Wr. Lng.
Brd. Wr. Lg.
Bas. Wr. Sk.
Wr. Exp.
Phn.-Grp.Kn.
Math.
Brd. Math
Math Cal.Sk.
Math Pr. Slv.
CHC achievement
abilities and WJ IV clusters
Phon. Cod. Sp. Lx. Acc.
ST Wk. Mem.
(&Ext)
Cog .Pr.Spd. LT Retrieval Visual Proc.Aud. Proc.
Perc. Spd.
Cognitive Efficiency
(& Ext)
Aud. Mm. Sp.
Other CHC broad/narrow cognitive and oral
language abilities and WJ IV clusters
Gwm Gs Ga Glr Gv
Number Facility
(equals)
SD and PR for calculated
difference score
Difference
Score
(Compare to distribution of
difference scores in WJ IV norm
sample to determine significant
strength or weakness)
Actual Target
Cluster Score(minus)
Back to comparison menu

Gf (Other): Average of other (non-Gf) 6 core tests
GcGf
Number
Series
Gwm Gs Ga Glr
Oral
Vocabulary
Verbal
Attention
Letter-Pat.
Matching
Phono.
Processing
Story
Recall
Visual-
ization
Predicted
Num. Series
Number
Series
-
(minus)
=
(equals)
Difference
Score
difference scores
(Compare difference score to
distribution of difference
scores in WJ IV norm sample
to determine significant
Concept
Formation
Analysis-
Synthesis
Fluid
Reasoning
Fluid
Reason-Ext
Quant.
Reasoning
Number
Matrices
Other Gf tests Other Gf clusters
The same Gf (Other) score is used to evaluate obtained-
predicted difference scores for any other optional Gf test or
cluster that is available after testing.
Procedure is repeated for each CHC domain—each CHC core test
removed and relevant “other” average computed, etc.
Similar procedures available for OL and ACH based on each
batteries core tests and optional tests and clusters.
Oral
Vocabulary
Verbal
Attention
Letter-Pat.
Matching
Phono.
Processing
Story
Recall
Visual-
ization
Core cognitive tests for intra-cognitive variation procedure
Explanation of WJ-IV intra-variation procedure: Cognitive example
Gv

General Intellectual Ability (GIA) cluster (Predictor score)
General Intellectual Ability (GIA) /Achievement comparison procedure
Gwm Gs Ga Glr GvGcGf
CHC Cognitive Abilities and WJ IV COG and OL Clusters
Regression-based prediction models that account for
regression-to-the-mean (and how it varies by age)
Predicted
Target
Cluster Score
Actual Target
Cluster Score(minus) (equals)
Difference
Score
difference score
difference scores in WJ IV
norm sample to determine
significant strength or
weakness)
Oral
Language
Grw Gq
Brief Achievement
Academic Skills
Academic Fluency
Broad Achievement
Reading
Brd. Rdg.
Rdg. Flu.
Bas. Rdg. Sk.
Rdg. Cmp.
(& Ext)
Rdg. Rate
Wr. Lng.
Brd. Wr. Lg.
Bas. Wr. Sk.
Wr. Exp.
Phn.-Grp.Kn.
Math.
Brd. Math
Math Cal.Sk.
Math Pr. Slv.
(Possible criterion or predicted target scores)
Broad Oral Language
Oral Expression
Listening Comprehension
CHC Achievement
Abilities and WJ IV
clusters
Academic Knowledge

CHC Cognitive Abilities and WJ IV COG and OL Clusters
Oral Language/Achievement comparison procedure
SD and PR for
calculated
difference scores
difference scores in WJ IV
norm sample to determine
significant strength or
weakness)
Broad Oral
Language *
(Predictor score)
Sp. Lx. Acc.Phon. Cod.
Regression-based
prediction models
that account for
regression-to-the-
mean (and how it
varies by age)
Predicted
Target Cluster
Score
Actual Target
Difference
Score
Academic Skills
Academic Fluency
Brd. Rdg.
Rdg. Flu.
Bas. Rdg. Sk.
Rdg. Cmp.
(& Ext)
Rdg. Rate
Wr. Lng.
Brd. Wr. Lg.
Bas. Wr. Sk.
Wr. Exp.
Phn.-
Grp.Kn.
Brd. Math
Math Cal.Sk.
Math Pr.
Slv.
Reading Math.
Grw Gq
CHC Achievement Abilities
and WJ IV ACH clusters
(Possible
criterion or
predicted
target
scores)
Academic Knowledge
(* English or Spanish)


Grw Gq
Brief Achievement
Academic Skills
Academic Fluency
Broad Achievement
Reading
Brd. Rdg.
Rdg. Flu.
Bas. Rdg. Sk.
Rdg. Cmp.
(& Ext)
Rdg. Rate
Wr. Lng.
Brd. Wr. Lg.
Bas. Wr. Sk.
Wr. Exp.
Math.
Brd. Math
Math Cal.Sk.
Math Pr. Slv.
CHC achievement
abilities and WJ IV clusters
Academic
Knowledge
(Predictor
score)
Academic Knowledge/Achievement comparison procedure
Predicted
Target Cluster
Score
Actual Target
difference score
Difference
Score
difference scores in WJ IV norm
sample to determine significant
CHC cognitive abilities and WJ IV cognitive and oral language clusters
Sp. Lx. Acc.Phon. Cod.
Regression-based prediction
models that account for
regression-to-the-mean

1. Big picture overview: Conceptual, theoretical, organizational, and
design principles behind the WJ IV COG

OM
PC US UM U8 UR
U1
U9
UP UL
Vz SR MV CS SS CF IM PI LE IL PN
Sensory-MotorDomain-
SpecificAbilities
Sensory
The CHC Periodic
Table of Human
Abilities
Adapted from Schneider & McGrew (2012)
and McGrew, LaForte and Schrank (2014)
I RG RQ
WM MS AC
R3 PT MT
P N R9
R1 R2 R4 R7 IT
MA MM M6 FI FA FE SP F0 NA FW LA FF FX
Ideas Words Figures
Domain-Independent
Capacities
Glr-Learning efficiency
Glr-Retrieval fluency
Broad ability
Narrow ability
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP)
Dr. Kevin McGrew 3-28-14
KM A3
LD VL K0 LS CM MY
KL K1 A5 MK KF LP BC
V RD RC RS WA SG EU WS
AcquiredKnowledge
Systems
K2
PI P2 P3 P4 P6 P7 A1
U1
U9
UP UL
Motor

For fun: Available at
www.iqscorner.com

•Relative degree of cognitive complexity:
High Medium (M/M) Low
•CHC broad factor loading
•Test name abbreviation
•CHC narrow ability code(s)
Te
Go
All information based on
analysis of WJ IV norm
data from ages 6 thru 19
•BIS (modified) content/stimulus
characteristic
NumSeries
(RQ)
.91 .62 H .80
•g-loading
•Reliability
#
.62 .73 .63 •Median correlations with R, M, W

.78
.75
.71
.60
.71
.66
.76
OralCmp
(LS)
PicVoc
(VL)
.82 .69 M .76 .81 .65 M .82
RpdPcNm
(NA)
RetFlu
(FI)
.80 .57 M .42 .85 .51 L .24
SndAwr
(PC)
Segment.
(PC)
SndBlnd
(PC)
.71 .67 H .52 .93 .60 M.74 .88 .53 L .62
SenRep
(MS/LS)
.83 .60 M .48
UndDir
(WM)
.86 .66 M .64
COGCHCclusterg-loadings
NumSeries
(RQ)
ConFrm
(I)
AnlSyn
(RG)
.91 .62 H .80 .92 .62 M .62.90 .65 M .66
OralVoc
(LD/VL)
GenInfo
(K0)
.89 .74 H .86 .84 .59 M .78
StryRec
(MM)
VisAudLrg
(MA)
.93 .58 M .54 .96 .52 L .48
LetPtMat
(P)
NumPtMat
(P)
PairCan
(P/AC)
.90 .55 M .77 .89 .49 L .60.84 .53 M .80
Visual.
(Vz)
PicRec
(MV)
.83 .60 M .70 .71 .47 L .50
PhnProc
(PC/LA)
NonWrRep
PC,UM/MS
.83 .75 H .59 .90 .58 M .18
VerbAttn
(WM/AC)
ObNmSq
(WM)
NumRev
(WM)
MemWrd
(MS)
.86 .65 H .76 .86 .61 M .36.89 .71 M .74 .82 .63 M .58
.15
.18
.50
.29 .26
.18 .30
.29
Gq
.32 Grw
COG ACH
OL
.62 .73 .63 .43 .48 .35 .29 .46 .33
.42 .42 .50 .32 .41 33 .39 .45 .41 .29 .27 .31
.31 .37 .42 .29 .30 .29
.51 .55 .48 .51 .55 .58 .34 .45 .34
.57 .56 .52 .47 .44 .40
.36 .46 .37 .25 .23 .27
.53 .50 .53 .34 .25 .41
.43 .35 .41 .44 .42 .38
.37 .37 .35 .33 .24 .25
.51 .42 47 .47 .42 .41
.53 .49 .55 .43 .38 .42 .29 .27 .27
   

    
  

 

 

#
#
  
 

5. “In god we trust…all others must show data:”—select COG
tech. info.

Select WJ IV COG technical
information

COG/OL Mdn.
Clusters r r2
General Intellectual Ability 0.76 0.58
Brief Intellectual Ability 0.73 0.53
Gf-Gc Composite 0.68 0.46
Comprehension-Knowledge (Gc) 0.58 0.34
Comprehension-Knowledge-Ext (Gc3) 0.58 0.34
Fluid Reasoning (Gf) 0.64 0.41
Fluid Reasoning-Ext (Gf3) 0.59 0.35
Short-Term Working Memory (Gwm) 0.53 0.28
Short-Term Working Memory-Ext (Gwm3) 0.52 0.27
Cognitive Processing Speed (Gs) 0.49 0.24
Auditory Processing (Ga) 0.51 0.26
Long-Term Retrieval (Glr) 0.43 0.18
Visual Processing (Gv) 0.38 0.14
Quantitative Reasoning (Gf-RQ) 0.59 0.35
Auditory Memory Span (Gsm-MS) 0.47 0.22
Number Facility (Gs-N) 0.62 0.38
Perceptual Speed (Gs-P) 0.58 0.34
Cognitive Efficiency (Gsm+Gs) 0.55 0.30
Cognitive Efficiency-Ext (Gsm+Gs) 0.66 0.44
Oral Language 0.55 0.30
Broad Oral Language 0.57 0.32
Oral Expression 0.54 0.29
Listening Comprehension 0.55 0.30
Phonetic Coding (Ga-PC) 0.44 0.19
Speed of Lexical Access (Glr-LA) 0.37 0.14
Vocabulary (Gc-LD/VL) 0.60 0.36
WJ IV COG
and OL
cluster
correlations
with WJ IV
ACH clusters:
Correlations
across 15
ACH clusters
(ages 6-90+)

Select validity evidence: Correlations of WJ IV
GIA, Gf-Gc composite, and BIA clusters with
Wechsler FS and GAI IQ scores
General Intellectual Ability (GIA)
Brief Intellectual Ability
Gf-Gc composite
WISC-IV WAIS-IV
.86 .81
.83 .80
.83 .83
Correlations are from WJ IV and WISC-IV (n = 174) and WAIS-IV (n = 177)
concurrent validity studies (McGrew, LaForte, & Schrank, 2014). Wechsler
FS/GAI correlations are .95 (WISC-IV) and .94 (WAIS-IV) in these samples.
FS GAI FS GAI
.84 .78
.74 .68
.78 .76

Select validity evidence: Correlations of WJ IV
BIA and Gf-Gc composite clusters with GIA
Brief Intellectual Ability (BIA)
Gf-Gc composite
General Intellectual
Ability (GIA)
.93
.87
Average correlations calculated across norm sample ages 6 through 90+

WISC-IV WISC-IV WISC-IV WISC-IV
VCI PRI WMI PSI
WJ IV Measures (Gc) (Gf/Gv) (Gwm) (Gs)
CHC Factor Clusters
Comprehension-Knowledge (Gc) 0.79
Fluid Reasoning (Gf) 0.70
Short-Term Working Memory (Gwm) 0.72
Processing Speed (Gs) 0.55
Auditory Processing (Ga)
Long-Term Retrieval (Glr)
Visual Processing (Gv) 0.55
Narrow Ability & Clinical Clusters
Quantitative Reasoning (RQ) 0.65
Auditory Memory Span (MS) 0.52
Number Facility (N) 0.57
Perceptual Speed (P) 0.56
Note: Bold font values represent correlations between best comparable CHC broad composites.
Red bold font are interesting correlations given the Wechsler composites composition.
WISC-IV/WAIS-IV PRI and WMI composites are not comparable--different mixtures of CHC abilities.
(see next slide)
WJ IV COG /WISC-IV CHC composite select
score correlations ( n = 174)
Block Design-Gv-Vz
Pic Cocnepts – Gf-I
Matrix Reasoning – Gf-I
Digit Span – Gwm-MS/MW
Letter-Num Seq – Gwm-MW

WAIS-IV WAIS-IV WAIS-IV WAIS-IV
VCI PRI WMI PSI
WJ IV Measures (Gc) (Gv/Gf) (Gwm/Gq) (Gs)
CHC Factor Clusters
Short-Term Working Memory (Gwm) 0.67
Processing Speed (Gs) 0.44
Narrow Ability & Clinical Clusters
Quantitative Reasoning (RQ) 0.54 0.53
Auditory Memory Span (MS)
Number Facility (N) 0.65 0.52
Perceptual Speed (P) 0.61
Red bold font are interesting correlations given the Wechsler composites composition.
WISC-IV/WAIS-IV PRI and WMI composites are not comparable--different mixtures of CHC abilities. Noted
Wechsler correlations with tests classifications based on Flanagan et al., 2013.
WJ IV COG / WAIS-IV CHC composite select
score correlations ( n = 177)
Block Design-Gv-Vz
Visual Puzzles – Gv-Vz
Matrix Reasoning – Gf-I
Digit Span – Gwm-MS/MW
Arithmetic – Gwm-WM/Gf-RQ (Gq?)

KABC-II KABC-II KABC-II KABC-II KABC-II
Know./ Plan./ Sim./ Seq./ Lrng./
WJ IV Measures Gc
Index
Gf
Index
Gv
Index
Gsm
Index
Glr
Index
CHC Factor Clusters
Short-Term Working Memory
(Gwm)
0.42
Processing Speed (Gs)
Long-Term Retrieval (Glr) 0.64
Low to moderate corresponding Gf, Gv and Gwm correlations most likely reflect narrow ability
content differences in composites (classifications based on Reynolds et al., 2007 and Flanagan et al.,
2013).
WJ IV COG / KABC-II composite select
score correlations (n = 50)
Pattern Reasoning - Gf-I/Gv-Vz
Story Completion – Gf-RG
Number Recall – Gsm-MS
Word Recall – Gsm-MS/WM?
Rover – Gv-SS
Triangles – Gv-Vz

SB-5 SB-5 SB-5 SB-5 SB-5
Fluid Quant. Vis.-Spatial Working
Know. Reas. Reas. Proc. Memory
WJ IV Measures (Gc) (Gf) (Gf-RQ) (Gv) (Gwm)
CHC Factor Clusters
Comprehension-Knowledge (Gc) 0.68 0.75 0.72 0.72
Fluid Reasoning (Gf) 0.67 0.56 0.66 0.66
Short-Term Working Memory (Gwm) 0.62 0.69
Auditory Processing (Ga) 0.68 0.73 0.72
Red bold font are interesting correlations given the SB-5 composites composition.
The convergent/divergent validity of the SB-5 CHC composite scores has been seriously questioned
(Canivez, 2008; DiStefano & Dombrowski, 2006; Keith & Reynolds, 2010) as well as very high composite
score intercorrelations in the SB-5 technical manual (.65 to .75)
WJ IV COG / SB-5 CHC composite select score
correlations (n = 50)

Dr. Kevin McGrew internet resources
(@iqmobile)

The WJ IV and Beyond CHC Theory: Kevin McGrew's NASP mini-skills workshop

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (11)

Similar to The WJ IV and Beyond CHC Theory: Kevin McGrew's NASP mini-skills workshop

Similar to The WJ IV and Beyond CHC Theory: Kevin McGrew's NASP mini-skills workshop (20)

More from Kevin McGrew

More from Kevin McGrew (8)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

The WJ IV and Beyond CHC Theory: Kevin McGrew's NASP mini-skills workshop

Editor's Notes