Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Impact of CHC intelligence theory beyond psychometric sandbox

I have made numerous posts about the CHC theory of intelligence now being considered the consensus psychometric model of the structure of intelligence (click here for latest)

The conclusion that CHC Theory is the consensus psychometric model of the structure of intelligence is reinforced by a diverse set of activities that have occurred beyond the boundaries the CHC-focused research and test development. Select examples are listed below:

• In a methodological research review, Reeve and Blacksmith (2009) used the CHC taxonomy to code the type and proportion of ability indicators present in published factor studies that sought to identify the g-factor.

Haier, Colom, Schroeder, Condon, Tang, Eaves & Head (2009) added methodological rigor to their research on the parieto-frontal integration theory of intelligence (P-FIT), via the CHC classification of psychometric measures of g (and other select broad CHC constructs) used in their neuro-imaging studies, studies that have investigated the link between psychometric g, as well as Gf, Gc, and Gc indicators, and neuro-anatomical substrates of the brain (neuro-g).

• Using the CHC conceptual framework to operationalize the measurement model for the latent factors of g, Gf, Gc, Gv, and Gs, Kvist and Gustafsson (2008) used structural equation methods to test Cattell’s Investment theory for individual differences in the acquisition of knowledge and skills.

• Using measures of abilities intended to measure Howard Gardner’s multiple intelligences (Spectrum assessments), Castejon, Perez and Gilar (2010) prominently referenced CHC Theory and related research in their discussion and interpretation of a CFA study that concluded that Gardner’s multiple intelligence model does indeed support a higher-order psychometric g construct.

Reeve (2004) used the CHC framework to organize an SEM-based study that replicated the general conclusions of the CHC organized g+specific cognitive-achievement research (see McGrew, 2005), this time demonstrating that some narrow CHC abilities were important in understanding domain-specific declarative knowledge above and beyond the effects of g.

• A number of researchers have used the CHC framework and CHC-designed intelligence batteries (KABC-III, WJ-R/WJ III) to investigate possible gender differences on CHC constructs (Camarata & Woodcock, 2006; Reynolds, Keith, Ridley & Patel, 2008) and Spearmans’s law of diminishing returns (SLODR; Reynolds, Keith & Beretvas, 2010; Reynolds & Keith, 2007).

• A recent special issue of the Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment on the Flynn Effect included four key articles (Kaufman, 2010a, 2010b; McGrew, 2010b, Zhou, Zhu & Weiss, 2010) that discussed and interpreted the Flynn Effect with the terminology of CHC theory.

- iPost using BlogPress from my Kevin McGrew's iPad

No comments: