Mobile iPhone based post-Digital Competency of Psychologists: A Scoping Review

APA PsycNet FullTextHTML page 
https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2027-14042-001.html

Pardon typos and spelling errors-Message may be sent from iPhone and I've always had spelling problems :)

*****************************************
Kevin S. McGrew, PhD
Educational & School Psychologist
Director
Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP)
https://www.themindhub.com
******************************************

The McGrew (2022) Cognitive-Affective-Motivation Model of Learning (CAMML) article update - “something is happening here, what it is ain’t exactly clear” - #cognitive #intelligence #affective #motivation #intelligence #CHC #CAMMl #schoolpsychology #schoolpsychologists

In 2022 I published an invited big-picture “thought piece” on a proposed CAMML (cognitive-affective-motivation model of learning) in the Canadian Journal of School Psychology   The title wasThe Cognitive-Affective-Motivation Model of Learning (CAMML): Standing on the Shoulders of Giants.

I had hoped that by challenging existing narrow assessment practices in school psychology (SP), and proposing a more whole-child assessment model approach (where cognitive testing would be more limited and selective…not the knee jerk practice of most all referred kids for learning problems being administered a complete intelligence test battery), it would gain traction in some SP circles. From the informal and formal professional media sources I monitor, it has not..at least not yet.

The article was deliberately provocative and challenged the field of SP (especially trainers and leaders) to consider new assessment ideas and paradigms.  I fully recognized that the inertia of tradition and the constraints imposed by vested interest groups makes drastic paradigm changes in education difficult.  But as an invited tought piece one has more degree’s of freedom 😉. 

Recognizing how difficult it is to change established assessment practices, and recognizing the “ivory tower” orientation of the article, I stated: 

Integrating CAMML aptitude-trait complexes, which emphasize that motivation and SRL constructs are the focal personal investment learning mechanisms, in contemporary SP practice is an aspirational goal. The constraints of regulatory frameworks and the understandable skepticism of disability-specific advocacy groups will make such a paradigm-shift difficult. However, embracing the model of CAMML aptitude complexes may be what SP and education need to better address the complex nuances of individual differences in student learning. Snow's concept of aptitude, if embraced in reborn form as the CAMML framework, could reduce the unbalanced emphasis on intelligence testing in SPs assessment practices. However, the greatest impediment to change may be the inertia of tradition in SP”

Several weeks ago I completed a Google Scholar search to ascertain how frequently this article had been cited.  I was curious as I had seen no references to the article in traditional SP or assessment-related sources.  It is clear that the CAMML model (or any parts of it) have not yet resonated in SP or closely related education fields.  Perhaps it never will. Or………

To my surprise the search revealed 28 citations, most (but not all) outside of SP or related assessment publication outlets (except for another article I authored in 2023 and, of course, the motivation special issue introduction to that specific journal volume).  Here is a link to the results of this search.  The graph below shows a slow but increasing annual rate of reference citations.  Hmmmm….

Click on images to enlarge

Most references provide links to PDF articles if you want to skim the wide variety of non-SP contexts where the CAMML article has been cited.  It is a very interesting mix of professional topics and outlets. In my 45+ years of scholarship, I’ve never had a journal publication recognized almost exclusively outside of the intended professional audience.  Perhaps this is good…perhaps not.  I find it fascinating. Perhaps the diversity of professional outlet citations might foreshadow more wide-ranging (yet more gradual) future impact.  Below is the abstract and keywords from the article.  The CAMML article can be downloaded from my professional web page here. Below are colorized versions of the two figures from the article.

Abstract: The Cognitive-Affective-Motivation Model of Learning (CAMML) is a proposed framework for integrating contemporary motivation, affective (Big 5 personality) and cognitive (CHC theory) constructs in the practice of school psychologists (SPs). The central tenet of this article is that SPs need to integrate motivation alongside affective and cognitive constructs vis-à-vis an updated trilogy-of-the-mind (cognitive, conative, affective) model of intellectual functioning. CAMML builds on Richard Snow's seminal research on academic aptitudes—which are not synonymous with cognitive abilities. Learning aptitude complexes are academic domain-specific cognitive abilities and personal investment mechanisms (motivation and self-regulation) that collectively produce a student's readiness to learn in a specific domain. CAMML incorporates the “crossing the Rubicon” commitment pathway model of motivated self-regulated learning. It is recommended SPs take a fresh look at motivation theory, constructs, and research, embedded in the CAMML aptitude framework, by going back-to-the-future guided by the wisdom of giants from the field of cognition, intelligence, and educational psychology.

Keywords:  motivation, self-regulated learning, aptitudes, domain-specific, aptitude complexes, crossing the Rubicon, taxonomies, individual differences, readiness, CHC theory, Big 5, Gf-Gc theory

Click on images to enlarge

Research alert: Intriguing new “adaptive habits” executive function framework differentiating EF capacity and willingness to engage EF - #cognitive #intelligence #schoolpsychologists #schoolpsychology

Click on images to enlarge

 

This thought-provoking article, which proposes and explains the “adaptive habits” executive functioning framework, is an open access article (free download and read) 

 

Abstract

Executive functions (EFs) develop dramatically across childhood and predict important outcomes, including academic achievement. These links are often attributed to individual differences in EF capacities. However, individual difference accounts underemphasize contextual influences on EF. We propose a complementary perspective, the adaptive habits framework, which emphasizes how contextual factors support or hinder EF engagement in children. Contexts that support repeated EF engagement establish habits for engaging EF in similar contexts and in similar ways. Such habits, in turn, reduce the effort associated with engaging EF and thus increase the likelihood of deciding to en-gage EF in the future. We interpret empirical findings through the lens of adaptive habits, discuss the implications of this framework, and propose novel research approaches and interventions to support EF in children.

From Conclusion

Why do children (such as the two in our opening example) differ in their academic and EF task performance? The reviewed evidence demonstrates that such differences should be viewed as a product of distinct learning histories, sociocultural influences, and environmental contexts in-stead of solely as differences in EF capacities. The adaptive habits framework emphasizes how contextual factors influence children's decisions to engage EF and how such engagement (or its absence) supports the development of habits that make it easier (or harder) to engage EF in similar contexts or for similar rewards in the future. Thus, two children may have the same EF capacities; however, one child may perform better on standard measures of EF because these measures better align with how the child has practiced engaging EF in the real world and how their behaviors have been rewarded and reinforced, which in turn reduces the mental effort needed for engaging EF. The adaptive habits framework thus identifies these contextual factors as promising targets for future research on EF as well as for interventions to support the EF and academic achievement of children.

Interesting, reasonably accurate recent video on IQ/intelligence testing

I just stumbled across a relatively new video covering the history and several major issues regarding intelligence testing and IQ scores.  Two scholars that I respect (Dr. Cecil Reynolds; Dr. Stuart Ritchie) are featured in the video.  I did see some spelling errors in the subtitles (Dr. Ian Dearie instead of Dr. Ian Deary; Benet instead of Binet; using capital G when referencing Spearman's concept of general intelligence, which is always noted with an italic font small g; etc) and heard several statements that made me cringe slightly.  

Also, it left the impression that fluid and crystallized intelligence (and a lessor extent quantitative ability) are the primary recognized broad cognitive abilities measured by intelligence tests.  It did not acknowledge contemporary CHC theory as the consensus taxonomy of human cognitive abilities.  Also, it left the impression that IQ tests are "bubble in" multiple choice tests.  This may be true for group tests, but it is not the case with individually administered intelligence tests.

Overall, it is a reasonable video to share with others as an introduction, possibly in college courses where the concept of intelligence and IQ testing is being introduced.  It did a good job of covering the historical bad uses of IQ tests (e.g., discrimination; cultural bias, eugenics movement, etc.) 

The complete video is approximately 35 minutes.  It did freeze up for me at the 17 minute mark when it was going to display an ad....but I simply restarted the video and quickly moved to that point and then it continued.

 

 

 

Research Alert: Cognitive ability retest/practice effects by type of cognitive operation - #practiceeffect #retest #BIS #schoolpsychology #schoolpsychologist #forensicpsychology #CHC

 

 Click on image to enlarge for easier reading

This is an open access article that can be read/downloaded here.

Abstract

The term “retest effects” refers to score gains on cognitive ability as well as educational achievement tests upon repeated administration of the same or a similar test. Previous research on this phenomenon has focused mainly on general cognitive ability scores—often using manifest difference scores—and has neglected differences in retest effects across different types of cognitive operations underlying general cognitive abilities. Additionally, these studies have focused primarily on average group-level test scores, neglecting interindividual differences in retest effects. To address these gaps, we used latent growth curve modeling to examine retest effects in N = 203 participants across three test sessions, considering both general cognitive ability and its four underlying operations according to the Berlin intelligence structure model, namely, processing capacity, processing speed, creativity, and memory. Results show a linear improvement in overall performance of 53.60 points (about 10.45 IQ points) with each assessment, corresponding to two thirds of a standard deviation. Participants' slopes—that is, their rates of improvement across test sessions—did not vary significantly, and thus did not correlate with their initial cognitive ability levels. Statistically significant operation-specific differences in the magnitude of retest effects were found, with memory showing the largest retest effect and creativity the smallest. Although participants did not vary in their rates of improvement on the processing-capacity and memory operation, there was significant interindividual variation in the slopes of the other two operations. These findings highlight the importance of considering operation-specific scores in research on retest effects. Implications for cognitive ability retesting practices are discussed.

Hamm v Smith intellectual disability SCOTUS Atkins death penalty oral arguments (12-10-25) re multiple IQ scores: #ID #atkins #deathpenalty #IQ #intelligence

See prior post regarding Hamm v Smith Atkins ID death penalty case where central issue is how to handle multiple IQ scores.  All briefs are at that prior blog post page.

Oral arguments before the SCOTUS justices occurred this past Wednesday, 12-10-25.  One can download audio file (arguments lasted 2 hours) or transcript of arguments at this link. 

Article Alert: AI tools for systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses in educational psychology: An overview and a practical guide - #AI #reviews #metaanalysis#EDPSY

 Click on images to enlarge for easy reading

This is an open access article that can be read or downloaded by clicking here.

A B S T R A C T

The rapid growth of research literature has made systematic reviews and meta-analyses increasingly time-consuming, limiting their utility in fast-evolving fields such as educational psychology. Artificial intelligence (AI) tools have enormous potential to streamline these processes, yet their adoption remains limited due to usability issues and a lack of systematic guidance. Out of 282 tools that we compiled from overviews that listed AI tools for research syntheses, we filtered a subset of 7 AI tools that met quality standards, such as transparency and accessibility. These tools were evaluated for their potential to support systematic reviews and meta-analyses in educational psychology. Our review highlights the tools' strengths, limitations, and ethical considerations for their responsible use by providing practical guidance and coding information. Educational relevance statement: This research identifies and evaluates AI tools that streamline systematic reviews and meta-analyses, addressing critical challenges in synthesizing educational psychology research. By making these processes more efficient, accessible, and accurate, the study empowers educators and researchers to derive timely insights into diverse learner needs. Practically, the findings guide the adoption of AI tools that reduce workload and cognitive bias, enabling more evidence-based and inclusive educational practices. This work supports the advancement of scientifically rigorous methods that enhance understanding of individual differences in learning, directly contributing to improved educational interventions and outcomes

Independent review of the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abilities - #WJV #CHC #cognitive #intelligence #schoolpsychologists #schoolpsychology #SLD #SPED

 

Abstract

The Woodcock–Johnson V Tests of Cognitive Abilities (WJ V COG), published in February 2025, offers the latest edition of the WJ family of tests alongside tests of academic achievement and oral language. The WJ V COG has changed substantially from previous editions regarding administration, which is now entirely digital. Administration and scoring are housed within the Riverside Insight's online platform. The test battery features several changes, such as the addition of five new tests and the removal of three tests, including measures of Auditory Processing (Ga). The WJ V COG maintains a CHC-based theoretical framework, although updated to align with current theory. Psychometric evidence, including validity, reliability, and item-level analysis, is robust. Evidence is less convincing for children under six. The assessment was co-normed with measures of academic achievement, and the norm sample was gathered post-COVID. Although some may find requirements of digital administration limiting, the WJ V COG offers an engaging and psychometrically sound option for the assessment of intelligence.

Keywords:  assessment, intelligence, cognitive, digital administration, test review

The above independent review of the WJ V cognitive battery is now available for reading (and downloading) as an open access article at the Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment.

COI statement:  I, Dr. Kevin McGrew, am senior author of the WJ V.  However, I no longer (as in the past with the WJ III through WJ IV) have a royalty interest in the in the WJ V—I make ZERO income based on how many are sold.  The publisher moved to a new independent contractor reimbursement model where the authors were paid for work on the WJ V prior to publication.  However, I clearly have a potential professional non-income based COI given my lengthy history with the WJ batteries and my professional reputation.  I do still receive royalties for sales of the WJ IV. I also have no post-publication contract (or COI) to work on any new features that the publisher adds to the digital product after the formal release in Feb 2025, which as a digital product, can add new features on a semi-regular basis. In other words, consider me an “unrestricted free agent” in the intelligence testing space.  😉

IQ McGrew’s Recommended Reading: How Human Personality [and Intelligence] Will [May?] Change With the Use of Artificial Intelligence - #recrdg #personality #intelligence #AI #CHC #artificialintellignece #psychology #schoolpsychology #schoolpsychologists

Click on images to enlarge for easier reading

I seldom designate an article as a recommended reading. I typically make FYI posts about new research I finding interesting in my small corner of the larger sandbox of psychology…more as FYI alerts.  I break with my typical FYI research alert blogging behavior for this article by Dr. John D. Mayer.  I recommend reading Mayer’s thought provoking article—especially since it is open source and can be downloaded and read for free (click here to access).

Why?  Because it is a well-reasoned “thought piece” about the many unanswered questions regarding the potential positive and negative impact of AI on humans, in this case, human personality and cognition.  I’m relatively new to the fast-moving AI movement and, as an educational psychologist, I’m interested in how certain cognitive abilities (especially CHC cognitive abilities) may become “skilled” or “deskilled” with greater reliance on AI.  

Abstract

People change as they form new habits, encounter new situations, and mature. As people interact with artificial intelligence (AI), their personalities will change, including their emotional responses to AI, their cognition, and their self-understanding. The present theoretical integration draws together empirical studies of how personality changes in response to technological innovations, and to AI in particular. Research studies reviewed were selected according to their relevance and quality. Some key points include that (a) as AI becomes increasingly human-like, and humans represent themselves online, humans and bots become increasingly difficult to distinguish; (b) as people rely on AI as a coach to guide them in interpersonal interactions, they may become socially deskilled; and, (c) as they rely on AI for work tasks, they may become cognitively deskilled in key areas. These changes in personality will entail an overall shift in people’s self-concepts. Psychologists can track these changes by classifying people’s types of AI interactions and relating them to relevant personality attributes.

Supreme Court to consider the role of #IQ tests in ban on executing people who are #intellectually disabled (#ID)- #SCOTUSblog: #schoolpsychology #schoolpsychologists #intelligence

An email quick-blog post FYI.

 

If you want more information, including amicus briefs for the defendent from professional groups (APA, AAIDD), visit a special post at IQs Corner blog—-

 

Court to consider the role of IQ tests in ban on executing people who are intellectually disabled - SCOTUSblog 
https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/12/court-to-consider-the-role-of-iq-tests-in-ban-on-executing-people-who-are-intellectually-disabled/

Pardon typos and spelling errors-Message may be sent from iPhone and I've always had spelling problems :)
 

 

*****************************************
Kevin S. McGrew, PhD
Educational & School Psychologist
Director
Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP)
https://www.themindhub.com
******************************************

 

New study on early smartphone use (around age 12) suggests potential physical and mental health issues

Interesting FYI email-based quick post.  Nice to see the authors remind us that correlation does not prove causation. But……..

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/01/well/family/early-smartphone-ownership-study.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

Pardon typos and spelling errors-Message may be sent from iPhone and I've always had spelling problems :)
 

 

*****************************************
Kevin S. McGrew, PhD
Educational & School Psychologist
Director
Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP)
https://www.themindhub.com
******************************************

 

IQs Corner: #Cloze test performance and #cognitive abilities: A comprehensive #meta-analysis - #intelligence #Grw #Gc #CHC #g #Gf #schoolpsychologists #schoolpsychologt

This is an open access article that can be read/downloaded at this link.

Click on image to enlarge

Abstract

Cloze tests have a long history and have been used to measure various abilities, including intelligence, reading comprehension, and language proficiency. To locate cloze tests within a nomological network of cognitive abilities, we conducted a multilevel random effects meta-analysis covering 110 years of research. Studies were eligible if they provided a measure of association between a cognitive fill-in-the-blank test and any cognitive ability test. We synthesized manifest correlations from 89 studies (N = 37,912, k = 634) and found an average correlation of r = .54 (95% CI [.49, .59], k = 485) with crystallized intelligence, r = .48 (95% CI [.42, .54], k = 69) with fluid intelligence, and r =.61 (95% CI [.46, .77], k = 32) with general intelligence. While today's application of the typical cloze is to measure reading comprehension, our results revealed a similarly strong association with a broad range of crystallized abilities. Of the key moderators we investigated—text base, administration mode, deletion pattern, and response type—only the response type showed a significant effect. Sensitivity analyses supported the robustness of our findings. We conclude by revisiting the origin of the cloze test and highlighting the need for systematic studies on how different cloze test designs affect construct validity. Whereas the meta-analytic database predominantly originates from language research, where cloze tests are entrenched as markers of language proficiency, we propose reframing cloze tests as a versatile intelligence test format—just like multiple-choice tests constitute a testing method—that can be tailored to assess various specific cognitive abilities.