From the #Cattell-Horn-Carroll (#CHC) #cognitive #intelligence theory archives: Photos of important 1999 Carroll, Horn, Woodcock, Roid et al. meeting in Chapel Hill, NC.

I was recently cleaning my office when I stumbled upon these priceless photos from a 1999 historical meeting in Chapel Hill, NC that involved John Horn, Jack Carroll, Richard Woodcock, Gale Roid, John Wasserman, Fred Schrank and myself).  The provenance (I’ve always wanted to use this word 😉) for the meeting is provided below the pictures in the form of extracted quotes from Wasserman (2019) and McGrew (2023) (links below), which I confirmed with John Wasserman via a personal email on August, 30, 2025.

The 1990 CHC-based WJ-R had already been published and the WJ III author team were nearing completion of the CHC-based WJ III (2001).  Unbeknownst to many is the fact that Woodock was originally planned to be one of the coauthors of the SB5 (along with Gale Roid), which explains his presence in the photo’s that document one of several planning meetings for the CHC-based SB5.  

I was also involved as a consultant during the early planning for the CHC-based SB5 because of my knowledge of the evolving CHC theory.  My role was to review and integrate all available published and unpublished factor analysis research on all prior editions of the different SB legacy tests. I post these pictures with the names of the people included in each photo immediately below the photo. No other comments (save for the next paragraph) are provided.  

To say the least, my presence at this meeting (as well as many other meetings with Carroll and Horn together, as well as with each alone, that occured when planning the various editions of the WJ’s) was surrealistic.  One could sense a paradigm shift in intelligence testing that was happening in real time during the meetings!  The expertise of the leading theorists regarding what became known as CHC theory, together with the expertise of the applied test developers of Woodcock and Roid, provided me with learning experiences that cannot be captured in any book or university course work. 

Click on images to enlarge.  

Be gentle, these are the best available copies of images taken with an old-school camera (not smart-phone based digital images)

(Carroll, Woodcock, McGrew, Schrank)

(Carroll, Woodcock, McGrew)

(Woodcock, Wasserman, Roid, Carroll, Horn)

(Wasserman, Roid, Carroll, Horn, McGrew)

(Carroll, Woodcock)

———————-

“It was only when I left TPC for employment with Riverside Publishing (now Houghton-Mifflin-Harcourt; HMH) in 1996 that I met Richard W. Woodcock and Kevin S. McGrew and became immersed in the extended Gf-Gc (fluid-crystallized)/ Horn-Cattell theory, beginning to appreciate how Carroll's Three-Stratum (3S) model could be operationalized in cognitive-intellectual tests. Riverside had been the home of the first Gf-Gc intelligence test, the Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scale, Fourth Edition (SB IV; R. L. Thorndike, Hagen, & Sattler, 1986), which was structured hierarchically with Spearman's g at the apex, four broad ability factors at a lower level, and individual subtests at the lowest level. After acquiring the Woodcock–Johnson (WJ-R; Woodcock & Johnson, 1989) from DLM Teaching Resources, Riverside now held a second Gf-Gc measure. The WJ-R Tests of Cognitive Ability measured seven broad ability factors from Gf-Gc theory with an eighth broad ability factor possible through two quantitative tests from theWJ-R Tests of Achievement. When I arrived, planning was underway for new test editions – the WJ III (Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001) and the SB5 (Roid, 2003) – and Woodcock was then slated to co-author both tests, although he later stepped down from the SB5. Consequently, I had the privilege of participating in meetings in 1999 with John B. Carroll and John L. Horn, both of whom had been paid expert consultants to the development of the WJ-R” (Wasserman, 2019, p. 250)

——————-

“In 1999, Woodcock brokered the CHC umbrella term with Horn and Carroll for practical reasons (McGrew 2005)—to facilitate internal and external communication regarding the theoretical model of cognitive abilities underlying the then-overlapping test development activities (and some overlapping consultants, test authors, and test publisher project directors; John Horn, Jack Carroll, Richard Woodcock, Gale Roid, Kevin McGrew, Fred Schrank, and John Wasserman) of the Woodcock–Johnson III and the Stanford Binet–Fifth Edition by Riverside Publishing” (McGrew, 2023, p. 3)

IQs Corner: Practice effects persist over two decades of cognitive testing: Implications for longitudinal research - #practiceeffect #cognitive #neurocognit #IQ #intelligence #schoolpsychology #schoolpsychologists

Click on image to enlarge for easy reading

MedRxiv preprint available at.  https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.06.16.25329587

Elman et al. (2025)

ABSTRACT 

Background: Repeated cognitive testing can boost scores due to practice effects (PEs), yet it remains unclear whether PEs persist across multiple follow-ups and long durations. We examined PEs across  multiple assessments from midlife to old age in a nonclinical sample.   

Method: Men (N=1,608) in the Vietnam Era Twin Study of Aging (VETSA) underwent 
neuropsychological assessment comprising 30 measures across 4 waves (~6-year testing intervals) spanning up to 20 years. We leveraged age-matched replacement participants to estimate PEs at each wave. We compared cognitive trajectories and MCI prevalence using unadjusted versus PE-adjusted scores. 

Results: Across follow-ups, a range of 7-12 tests (out of 30) demonstrated significant PEs, especially in episodic memory and visuospatial domains. Adjusting for PEs resulted in improved detection of cognitive decline and MCI, with up to 20% higher MCI prevalence.  

Conclusion: PEs persist across multiple assessments and decades underscoring the 
importance of accounting for PEs in longitudinal studies.

  
Keywords: practice effects; repeat testing; serial testing; longitudinal testing; mild cognitive impairment; cognitive change

IQs Corner: What is happening in gifted/high ability research from 2013 to 2023? - #gifted #talented #highability #EDPSY #intelligence #achievement #schoolpsychologists #schoolpsychology

 Click on image to enlarge for easier reading

Trends and Topics Evolution in Research on Giftedness in Education: A Bibliometric Analysis.  Psychology in the Schools, 2025; 62:3403–3413

Rius, C., Aguilar‐Moya, R., Martínez‐Córdoba, C., Cantos‐Roldan, B., Vidal‐Infer, A.

Open access article that can be downloaded and read for free at this link.

ABSTRACT

The article explores the evolution of research on giftedness and high ability through a bibliometric analysis. It highlights challenges in identifying gifted individuals, who represent approximately 6.5% of students, although biased instruments and discriminatory selection practices may affect the identification of high skilled students. The tripartite model, defining giftedness as a combination of high intellectual ability, exceptional achievement, and potential for excellence, serves as a fundamental framework for this study. Using Dirichlet's latent assignment model, major research topics were identified, and trends from 2013 to 2023 were analyzed based on 1071 publications in the Web of Science database. The analysis revealed that publications focus on topics such as giftedness, talent management, and educational programs, showing a significant increase in research on these areas over the past decade. Key topics included psychometrics, gifted programs, and environmental factors. The United States, Germany, and Spain led in productivity with prominent publications addressing cognitive and socio‐emotional aspects of giftedness. Findings underscore the need for targeted educational interventions, including acceleration and enrichment programs, to address the academic and emotional challenges faced by gifted students. Research is shifting toward understanding the environmental influences on these students, highlighting the importance of supportive educational environment for their success.

IQs Corner: What is (and what is not) clinical judgment in intelligence test interpretation? - #IQ #intelligence #ID #intellectualdisability #schoolpsychologists #schoolpsychology #diagnosis

What is clinical judgment in intelligence testing?  

This term is frequently invoked when psychologists explain or defend their intelligence test interpretations.  Below is a brief explanation I’ve used to describe what it is…and what it is not, based on several sources.  Schalock and Luckasson’s AAIDD Clinical Judgment book (now in a 2014 revised version) is the best single source I have found that addresses this slippery concept in intelligence testing, particularly in the context of a potential diagnosis of intellectual disability (ID)—it is a recommended reading.

—————

Clinical judgment is a process based on solid scientific knowledge and is characterized as being “systematic (i.e., organized, sequential, and logical), formal (i.e., explicit and reasoned), and transparent (i.e., apparent and communicated clearly)” (Schalock & Luckasson, 2005, p.1). The application of clinical judgment in the evaluation of IQ scores in the diagnosis of intellectual disability includes consideration of multiple factors that might influence the accuracy of an assessment of general intellectual ability (APA: DSM-5, 2013).  The “unanimous professional consensus that the diagnosis of intellectual disability requires comprehensive assessment and the application of clinical judgment” (Brief of Amici Curiae American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Florida Psychological Association, National Association of Social Workers, and National Association of Social Workers Florida Chapter, in Support of Petitioner; Hall v. Florida; S.Ct., No. 12-10882; 2014; p. 8).

The misuse of clinical judgment in the interpretation of scores from intelligence test batteries should not be used as the basis for “gut instinct” or “seat-of-the-pants” impressions and conclusions of the assessment professional (Macvaugh & Cunningham, 2009), or justification for shortened evaluations, a means to convey stereotypes or prejudices, a substitute for insufficiently explored questions, or an excuse for incomplete testing and missing data (Schalock & Luckasson, 2005). Idiosyncratic methods and intuitive conclusions are not scientifically based and have unknown reliability and validity. 

If clinical judgement interpretations and opinions regarding an individual’s level of general intelligence are based on novel or emerging research-based principles, the assessment professional must document the bases for these new interpretations as well as the limitations of these principles and methods. This requirement is consistent with the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing Standard 9.4 which states:

When a test is to be used for a purpose for which little or no validity evidence is available, the user is responsible for documenting the rationale for the selection of the test and obtaining evidence of the reliability/precision of the test scores and the validity of the interpretations supporting the use of the scores for this purpose (p. 143).

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education (2014).  Standards for educational and psychological testing.  Washington, DC:  Author. 

American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders— Fifth Edition. Washington D.C.:  Author. 

Brief of Amici Curiae American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Florida Psychological Association, National Association of Social Workers, and National Association of Social Workers Florida Chapter, in Support of Petitioner; Hall v. Florida; S.Ct., No. 12-10882; 2014; p. 8.

MacVaugh, G. S. & Cunningham, M. D. (2009). Atkins v. Virginia: Implications and recommendations for forensic practice.  The Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 37, 131-187.

Schalock, R. L. & Luckasson, R. (2005). Clinical judgment. Washington, DC: American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. 

—————

Kevin S. McGrew, PhD.

Educational Psychologist

Director 

Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP)

www.theMindHub.com

Thoughts on the definition of dyslexia: More on the ongoing debate re the definition of dyslexia - #dyslexia #SLD #schoolpsychologists #schoolpsychology #SPED #reading

Thoughts on the Definition of Dyslexia.  Annals of Dyslexia (click here to read or download - open access)

Linda S. Siegel,  David P. Hurford, Jamie L. Metsala, Michaela R. Ozier, & Alex C. Fender

Abstract 

The International Dyslexia Association's current definition of dyslexia was approved by its Board of Directors on November 12, 2002. After two decades of scientific inquiry into the nature of dyslexia, it is time to reconsider and potentially revise the definition in light of what has been learned. We propose a definition of dyslexia based on its essential nature. Dyslexia is a specific learning disability in reading at the word level. It involves difficulty with accurate and/or fluent word recognition and/or pseudoword reading. We also suggest that the definition should focus solely on dyslexia's core features and should not include risk factors, potential secondary consequences, or other characteristics. Until those factors can reliably differentiate between those with and without dyslexia at an individual level, they should not be included in the definition.

WJ V Technical Manual Abstract assessment service bulletin now available for download - #WJV #technicalmanual #schoolpsychologists #schoolpsychology #SLD #SPED #assessment #achievement #intelligence

Click on image to enlarge

The WJ V Technical Manual Abstract assessment service bulletin is now available via Riverside Insights (click here to download and read).  Think of it as an abridged version of the massive WJ V Technical Manual (LaForte, Dailey & McGrew, 2025).  Required reading for anyone interested in the WJ V.  Of course, reading the complete “manifesto” is highly recommended.

 

This is a technical abstract for the Woodcock-Johnson® V (WJ V™; McGrew, Mather, LaForte, & Wendling, 2025), a comprehensive assessment system for measuring general intellectual ability (g), specific cognitive abilities, oral language abilities, and academic achievement from age 4 through 90+. It describes the updates, organization, and technical aspects of the WJ V, including reliability information and evidence to support the validity of the WJ V test and cluster score interpretations. While this document provides a high-level summary of these topics, readers should consult the Woodcock-Johnson V Technical Manual (LaForte et al., 2025) for more comprehensive documentation.

A #metaanalysis of #assessment of self-regulated learning (#SRL) - #selfregulatedlearning #learning #motivation #CAMML #EDPSY #schoolpsychologists #schoolpsychology #conative

Self-regulated learning (SRL) strategies are an important component of models of school learning.  Below is a new meta-analysis of SRL assessment methods.  Overall effect sizes are not large.  More R&D is needed to develop applied practical SRL measurement tools.  SRL is a one of the major components of the 2022 Cognitive-Affective-Motivation Model of Learning; CAMML; click here to access article),

Multimethod assessment of self-regulated learning in primary, secondary, and tertiary education – A meta-analysis.  Learning and Individual Differences (open access—click here to access).

Author links open overlay panel

Julia Ruhl, Franziska Perels , Laura Dorrenbacher-Ulrich

Abstract

Self-regulated learning (SRL) can be measured in several ways, which can be broadly classified into online and offline instruments. Although both online and offline measurements have advantages and disadvantages, the over-dependence of SRL research on offline measurements has been criticised considerably. Currently, efforts are being made to use multimethod SRL assessments. We examined 20 articles with 351 effect sizes that assessed SRL with at least two instruments on at least two SRL components. Most effect sizes were not statistically significant but descriptively higher than others. Combinations of two online instruments showed the highest effect size (r = 0.24). Overall correlations between instruments were highest for university students (r = 0.21). Additionally, results for cognition showed the highest effect size measured with behavioural traces (r = 0.28), and for metacognition measured with microanalysis (r = 0.35). The component of motivation was best measured using self-report questionnaires (r = 0.29).

Educational relevance statement

Self-regulated learning is an important predictor of academical success. It is therefore necessary to measure it as precise and comprehensive as possible. Knowing which instruments are best suited for each age group, SRL component, or reliably predict a specific achievement variable can help educators pick the best instrument for their needs.

Leaving no child behind—Beyond cognitive and achievement abilities - #CAMML source “fugitive/grey” working paper now available. Enjoy - #NCLB #learning #EDSPY #motivation #affective #cognitive #intelligence #conative #noncognitive #schoolpsychology #schoolpsychologists

I’ve recently made several posts regarding the importance of conative (i.e., motivation; self-regulated learning strategies; etc.) learner characteristics and how they should be integrated with cognitive abilities (as per the CHC theory of cognitive abilities) to better understand the interplay between learner characteristics and school learning.  These posts have mentioned (and I provided a link) to my recent 2022 article where I articulate a Cognitive-Affective-Motivation Model of Learning; CAMML; click here to access).

In the article I mention that the 2022 CAMML model had its roots in early work I completed as one of the first set of Principal Investigators during the first five years of the University of Minnesota’s National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO).  As a result of those posts I’ve had several requests for the original working paper which is best characterized as being “fugitive” or “grey” literature.

The brief back story is that the original 2004 document was a “working paper” (6-15-04; Increasing the Chance of No Child Being Left Behind: Beyond Cognitive and Achievement Abilities, by Kevin McGrew, David Johnson, Anna Casio, Jeffrey Evans) that was written with the aid of discretionary funds from the then Department of Education’s Office of Special Education (OSEP) during the influence of NCLB.  The working draft was submitted but curiously never saw the light of day.

With this post I’m now making the complete 2004 “working paper” (with writing, spelling, and grammar blemish’s in their full glory) available as a PDF.  Click here to access.  Although dated 20 years, IMHO the lengthy paper provides a good accounting of the relevant literature up to 2004, much of which is still relevant.  Below are images of the TOC pages which should give you an hint of the treasure trove of information and literature reviewed.  Enjoy.  Hopefully this MIA paper may help others pursue research and theoretical study in this important area.

Click on images to enlarge for easy reading

Research Byte: Is trying hard enough? Causal analysis of the effort-IQ relationship suggests not - #intelligence #IQ #motivation #volition #CAMML #conative #noncognitive

Is Trying Harder Enough? Causal Analysis of the Effort-IQ Relationship Suggests Not.  Timothy Bates. Intelligence and Cognitive Abilities (open access—click here to locate article to read or download)

Abstract

Claims that effort increases cognitive scores are now under great doubt. What is needed is randomized controlled trials optimized for testing causal influence and avoiding confounding of self-evaluation of performance with feelings of good effort. Here we report three large studies using unconfounded measures of effort and instrumental analysis to isolate any causal effect of effort on cognitive score. An initial study (N = 393) validated an appropriate effort measure, demonstrating excellent external and convergent validity (β = .61). Study 2 (N = 500, preregistered) randomly allocated subjects to a performance incentive, using an instrumental variable analysis to detect causal effects of effort. The incentive successfully manipulated effort (𝛽 = .18, p = .001). However, the causal effect of effort on scores was near-zero and non-significant (𝛽 = .04, p = .886). Study 3 (N=1,237) replicated this null result with preregistered analysis and an externally developed measure of effort: incentive again raised reported effort (𝛽 = .17, p <.001), but effort had no significant causal effect on cognitive score (β2 = .27 [-0.07, 0.62]), p = .15). Alongside evidence of research fraud and confounding in earlier studies, the present evidence for the absence of any causal effects of effort on cognitive scores, effort research should shift its focus to goal setting – where effort is useful – rather than raising basic ability, which it appears unable to do.

Select quote from discussion: “The present results suggest a potential ‘central dogma of cognition’: that volitional effort can direct cognitive resources but cannot fundamentally alter or bypass the efficacy of the underlying cognitive systems themselves”

These findings are consistent with my proposed cognitive-affective-motivation-model-of-learning (CAMML), grounded extensively on Richard Snows concept of aptitude trait complexes, where motivational constructs are seen as driving and directing the use of cognitive abilities (via personal investment mechanisms), but not directly having a causal effect on cognitive abilities.  See first of two figures below.  Note lack of causal arrows from conative and affective domain constructs to CHC cognitive abilities.  Paper can be accessed by clicking here.

Click on images to enlarge for easier viewing

Journal of Intelligence “Best Paper Award” for McGrew, Schneider, Decker & Bulut (2023) Psychometric network analysis of CHC measures - #psychometric #networkanalysis #intelligence #CHC #WJIV #bestpaper #schoolpsychology #schoolpsychologist

Today I (Kevin McGrew), and colleagues Joel Schneider, Scott Decker, and Okan Bulut, were pleased to learn that our recent 2023 Journal of Intelligence article listed above (open access—click link to read or download) was selected as 1 of 2 “Best Paper Awards” for 2023.  

As stated at the journal award page, “The Journal of Intelligence Best Paper Award is granted annually to highlight publications of high quality, scientific significance, and extensive influence. The evaluation committee members choose two articles of exceptional quality that were published in the journal the previous year and announce them online by the end of June.”

Below is the abstract and two figures that may pique your interest. We thank the members of the JOI evaluation committee.

Abstract

For over a century, the structure of intelligence has been dominated by factor analytic methods that presume tests are indicators of latent entities (e.g., general intelligence or g). Recently, psychometric network methods and theories (e.g., process overlap theory; dynamic mutualism) have provided alternatives to g-centric factor models. However, few studies have investigated contemporary cognitive measures using network methods. We apply a Gaussian graphical network model to the age 9–19 standardization sample of the Woodcock–Johnson Tests of Cognitive Ability—Fourth Edition. Results support the primary broad abilities from the Cattell–Horn–Carroll (CHC) theory and suggest that the working memory–attentional control complex may be central to understanding a CHC network model of intelligence. Supplementary multidimensional scaling analyses indicate the existence of possible higher-order dimensions (PPIK; triadic theory; System I-II cognitive processing) as well as separate learning and retrieval aspects of long-term memory. Overall, the network approach offers a viable alternative to factor models with a g-centric bias (i.e., bifactor models) that have led to erroneous conclusions regarding the utility of broad CHC scores in test interpretation beyond the full-scale IQ, g.

Keywords: 

CHC; Cattell–Horn–Cattell theory; intelligence; cognitive abilities; psychometric network analysis; process overlap theory; dynamic mutualism; factor analysis; general intelligence

Click on images to enlarge for easier viewing/reading

Research Byte: Lets hear it (again) for #visual-spatial (#Gv) #workingmemory (#Gwm) and math #reasoning (#Gf-RQ) — #CHC #SPED #EDPSY #schoolpsychology #schoolpsychologist #WJV

From Spatial Construction to Mathematics: Exploring the Mediating Role of Visuospatial Working Memory.  Developmental Psychology.  An open access article that can be downloaded—Click here.

Yuxin Zhang, Rebecca Bull, and Emma C. Burns.

Abstract

This study examined the longitudinal pathways from early spatial skills at 5 and 7 years to their mathematics reasoning abilities at 17 years in a large cohort sample (N = 16,338) from the Millennium Cohort Study. Children were assessed at four time points: Sweep 3 (Mage = 5.29), Sweep 4 (Mage = 7.23), Sweep 5 (Mage = 11.17), and Sweep 7 (Mage = 17.18), with measures including spatial construction skills, visuospatial working memory, mathematics achievement, and mathematics reasoning skills. Path analyses revealed that spatial construction at age 5 directly predicted mathematics achievement at age 7 after accounting for sex, age, socioeconomic status, vocabulary, and nonverbal reasoning ability. Furthermore, spatial construction at 5 and 7 years was directly associated with mathematics reasoning skills at 17, and spatial working memory at age 11 partially mediated this relationship. Notably, the direct effects of spatial construction on mathematics reasoning at age 17 remained significant and robust after accounting for the mediator and covariates. These findings highlight the potential value of early spatial construction skills as predictors of subsequent mathematical development over the long term.

Public Significance Statement.Children with stronger spatial skills at age 5 are more likely to achieve higher scores in mathematics at ages 7 and 17. Visuospatial working memory partly explained this link, and early spatial skills showed a direct and robust association with later mathematics. This study identified early spatial skills as an important long-term predictor of mathematics from preschool through adolescence. The findings highlight the potential of infusing spatial thinking and using spatial strategies to better understand and solve mathematics problems.

Click on image for easier viewing

Comment:  I recently made a post regarding research that demonstrated the importance of visual-spatial working memory abilities for spatial navigation where I also mentioned the new (not yet online as far as I know) WJ V Visual Working Memory test, which was decades in development—an interesting test development “back story”.  

Research Byte: #Cognitive #aging revisited: A cross-sectional analysis of the #WAIS-5 - #intelligence #developmental #cognition #schoolpsychologists #WAISV #schoolpsychology

Cognitive Aging Revisited: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of  the WAIS-5 

Emily L. Winter, Brittany A. Dale, Sachiko Maharjan, Cynthia R. Lando, Courtney M. Larsen,  Troy Courville and Alan S. Kaufman  

An open access article that can be read or downloaded at this link.

Abstract 

Historical cross-sectional approaches examining cognitive aging consistently reveal a pat-tern of steady decline on nonverbal problem-solving, speeded tasks, and maintenance on verbal tasks. However, as measures developed and broadened the factor structure to align with Cattell–Horn–Carroll (CHC) theory, and age ranges were extended from 75 to 90 years, a more nuanced approach to cognitive aging emerged. The present study, using the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, Fifth Edition (WAIS-5), examined the cognitive aging process through a cross-sectional approach. WAIS-5 normative sample data (aligned with the 2022 U.S. census) were obtained from the test publisher. The sample included adult participants aged 20–24 through 85–90 (n = 1660), which were mapped into 11 age groups. Using post-stratification weighting to control for educational attainment, cognitive decline was observed throughout aging; verbal skills were maintained longer than other abilities, while processing speed declined steadily and rapidly from young adulthood to old age. Working memory was vulnerable to the aging process but demonstrated slower patterns of decline than the other vulnerable abilities. Fluid reasoning and visual spatial skills (although aligning with separate CHC broad abilities theoretically) were strikingly similar in their pattern of decline across a person's lifespan. Results are highly consistent with the large body of cross-sectional research conducted during the previous generation by Salthouse and his colleagues, as well as other teams of researchers. 

Keywords: cognitive aging; WAIS-5; cross-sectional design; verbal abilities; nonverbal abilities 

Research Byte: The #cultural construction of #executivefunction - EF tasks reflect culturally-specific forms of #cognitive development - #cognition #schoolpsychology #schoolpsychologists #neuropsych

The cultural construction of “executive function”.  PNAS:  Research Article:  Psychological and Cognitive Sciences.  This is open access and can be downloaded or read online.  Link here.

Ivan Kroupin , Helen Elizabeth Davis, Emily Burdette, Agustina Bani Cuataf, Vahumburuka Hartley, and Joseph Henrich

Abstract

In cognitive science, the term “executive function” (EF) refers to universal features of the mind. Yet, almost all results described as measuring EF may actually reflect culturally specific cognitive capacities. After all, typical EF measures require forms of decontextualized/arbitrary processing which decades of cross-cultural work indicate develop primarily in “schooled worlds”–industrialized societies with universal schooling. Here, we report comparisons of performance on typical EF tasks by children inside, and wholly outside schooled worlds. Namely, children ages 5 to 18 from a postindustrial context with universal schooling (UK) and their peers in a rural, nonindustrialized context with no exposure to schooling (Kunene region, Namibia/Angola), as well as two samples with intermediate exposure to schooled worlds. In line with extensive previous work on decontextualized/arbitrary processing across such groups, we find skills measured by typical EF tasks do not develop universally: Children from rural groups with limited or no formal schooling show profound, sometimes qualitative, differences in performance compared to their schooled peers and, especially, com-pared to a “typical” schooled-world sample. In sum, some form of latent cognitive control capacities are obviously crucial in all cultural contexts. However, typical EF tasks almost certainly reflect culturally specific forms of cognitive development. This suggests we must decide between using the term EF to describe 1) universal capacities or 2) the culturally specific skill set reflected in performance on typical tasks. Either option warrants revisiting how we understand what has been measured as EF to date, and what we wish to measure going forward.

Click on image to enlarge for easy viewing

Once considered useless, this habit is now linked to improved memory, thinking, and creativity

Once considered useless, this habit is now linked to improved memory, thinking, and creativity 
https://www.earth.com/news/daydreaming-is-linked-to-improved-brain-health-memory-thinking-creativity-mental-functioning/

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
******************************************

Research Byte: #Measurementinvariance of the #Woodcock-Johnson® V (#WJV) Achievement Battery: An Exploratory Graph Analysis (#EGA) Approach - #schoolpsychology #schoolpsychologists #sld #SPED #achievement

 

Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment

Hyeonjoo Oh and Tong Wu

Abstract

The Woodcock-Johnson V (WJ V) test evaluates general intelligence and cognitive abilities using the Cattell–Horn–Carroll (CHC) theory framework. While measurement invariance is often tested using structural equation modeling (SEM), few studies have applied exploratory graph analysis (EGA), particularly in intelligence assessments. This study addresses that gap by examining configural and metric invariance of the WJ V achievement battery across age, race, and gender using normative data and a novel EGA approach. Results show that the WJ V maintains a consistent structure across diverse groups, supporting its validity in measuring the same constructs. Stability analyses further supported these findings, with test-to-community assignments remaining highly consistent in bootstrapped samples. Minor variation was observed only in the Oral Language Sample, which showed slightly lower but acceptable stability above 0.70.

Conflict of interest disclosure.  I’m the senior non-royalty earning author of the WJ V, which means I’ve already received payment for my services and don’t make a penny on any sales.

CHC Theory (2009) article hits 2000+ citations. Thanks.

2005 citations since 2009!!!!!

On occasion I check my Google Scholar profile.  Yesterday I was pleased to see that my most frequently cited peer-reviewed journal article (CHC theory and the human cognitive abilities project: Standing on the shoulders of the giants of psychometric research—Intelligence) had achieved the 2000+ (n=2005) total reference citations mark.  This clearly has been my most important peer-reviewed journal contribution to the field of intelligence and human cognitive abilities.

Thanks to all who have found the article useful.  And a special thanks to Dr. Doug Detterman.  After making an ISIR presentation about this topic, Doug, who was then the editor of Intelligence, invited me to submit an article.

Click on images to enlarge for easy reading

National Academies report: Blueprint for national prevention infrastructure for #mental #emotional #behavioraldisorders

Available to download for free at this link.

SUMMARY

Substance use disorder and overdose, suicide, and youth mental illness are major public health crises that cost the United States in lives, human potential, productivity, and resources. Government agencies at the federal, state, tribal, and local levels work together with health care entities, academic institutions, communities, and community-based organizations to respond to these crises largely with treatment and recovery services. Mental, emotional, and behavioral (MEB) disorders are mental and substance use disorders and associated problem behaviors, even if they do not meet diagnostic criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th ed. Less attention and fewer resources are dedicated to delivering services specifically devoted to preventing such disorders and promoting MEB health and overall well-being. Greater support for prevention could minimize the pain and suffering associated with MEB disorders, and, critically, reduce the burden on overtaxed treatment and recovery systems.

This report provides a blueprint to develop the infrastructure to deliver programs that reduce risk factors (characteristics associated with a higher likelihood of negative outcomes) and promote protective factors (characteristics that can reduce the negative impact of a risk factor and promote better outcomes) for MEB disorders across the life course and in an array of settings. The committee’s charge was to outline the components and requirements of a well-functioning infrastructure to support the delivery of evidence-based programs at federal, state, tribal, and local levels.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Blueprint for a National Prevention Infrastructure for Mental, Emotional, and Behavioral Disorders. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/28577.

IQs Corner at 20 years: Well over 5 million page views—10 million?

Every once and a while, when my motivation is low, I like to examine the page view/hit stats for this blog—IQs Corner.  Below is the current summary since Jan 2011…4.98 million!  This summary chart does not go back to the early days of this blog, when I blogged hot-and-heavy and had a steady stream of followers.  The first offical post was March 2005……I wish I could get all those stats…that is approximately 6 years of information not included in the 4.98 figure!  When accounted for, the total would be well beyond 5 million….per chance 10 million?  I wish I knew.

Also, for the past several years posts to this blog immediately “trigger” IFTTT posts (with links to the post page) on Twitter/X, BlueSky, and LinkedIn. A big spread of effect.

I want to thank all past and current readers of my various professional social media posts.  I may now go in streaks, but I’m still active.

Click on image to enlarge

Research Byte: Individual differences in #spatial navigation and #workingmemory - lets hear it for the new #WJV visual working memory test—#CHC #Gv #Gwm #schoolpsychology #cognition #intelligence

Individual differences in spatial navigation and working memory

Intelligence. Sorry, but not an open access downloadable article 😕

Abstract

Spatial navigation is a complex skill that relies on many aspects of cognition. Our study aims to clarify the role of working memory in spatial navigation, and particularly, the potentially separate contributions of verbal and visuospatial working memory. We leverage individual differences to understand how working memory differs among types of navigators and the predictive utility of verbal and visuospatial working memory. Data were analyzed from N = 253 healthy, young adults. Participants completed multiple measures of verbal and visuospatial working memory and a spatial navigation task called Virtual Silcton. We found that better navigators may rely more on visuospatial working memory. Additionally, using a relative weights analysis, we found that visuospatial working memory accounts for a large majority of variance in spatial navigation when compared to verbal working memory. Our results suggest individual differences in working memory are domain-specific in this context of spatial navigation, with visuospatial working memory being the primary contributor.

————————

As an FYI.  The WJ V has a new cognitive Visual Working Memory test that I created. Unfortunately, it was not included in the original WJ V launch and will be added in a later release…not sure when…no one has told me…but I think this fall.

The back story is that this test was in development for over 30 years by yours truly.  For the WJ III I developed, and we normed, a visual working memory test where examinee’s were shown a abstract line-based image on a dotted grid and were instructed to rotate the image in their mind (after the test stimuli figure was removed) and then draw the rotated image on a identical blank grid.  The idea of examinees drawing their response was to add additional clinical information about visual-motor abilities, in addition to visual working memory.  Unfortunately, after being completely normed, we learned via inter-rater reliability studies that the scoring reliability was not adequate…darn.  

The second attempt was an earlier version of the current WJ V Visual Working Memory test that had already been printed for the WJ IV norming test books.  The WJ IV version was shelved at the last minute due to cost issues as a result of the financial crises at the end of the Bush presidency.  We were instructed to reduce the cost of the WJ IV norming.  This test simply had too many printed test easel pages (was called a “page eater”) and was eliminated…double darn.  

However, this turned out to be a blessing in disguise.  With the new digital testing platform, the WJ IV version was now presented without a concern for the number of pages, and more importantly, it could have a much more complex and informative underlying scoring system since all taps on an asymetrical response grid were recorded (which was a richer set of response data than the original WJ IV version).  As stated in the WJ V technical manual (LaForte, Dailey & McGrew, 2025, p. 40):

The Visual Working Memory test requires the use of visual working memory “in the context of processing” (Maehara & Saito, 2007). For each item, the examinee briefly studies a pattern of stimulus dots inside of randomly placed squares on the screen and then must recall the specific locations of the dots. The presentation and recall screens are separated by a quick and simple visual discrimination distractor item. This test requires the examinee to maintain information in working memory while actively processing the distractor requirements. Once the distractor task is completed, it must be quickly removed from active memory to focus on recalling the locations of the stimulus dots (Burgoyne et al., 2022). Errors of both omission (i.e., erroneously recalling a dot in a box where no dot was present) and commission (i.e., failing to identify a box associated with a dot's correct location) are both factored into the test's scoring model; however, heavier emphasis is placed on visual recall through a relatively higher penalty for errors of commission.

Validity information in the WJ V TM provides evidence that the new Visual Working Memory test is a mixed measure of Gv and Gwm.  Preliminary evidence (inspection of growth curves and standard deviation distributional characteristics) was interpreted as being consistent with other measures of executive functioning.  Additional concurrent validity studies with established measures of executive functioning are needed before an evidence-based claim of executive functioning score variance can clearly be established.

I think the 30+ year wait was worth it.  I’m very proud of this test in its current form.  A “shout out” to Dr. Erica LaForte and David Dailey for creating such a response-rich stream of data for scoring…something that was not possible in the planned non-digital WJ III and WJ IV versions.