Variation in the intensity and consistency of attention during learning: The role of conative factors
Sunday, December 22, 2024
Let’s hear it for #conative (#noncognitive) variables in understanding learning—#CAMML #aptitude #traitcomplexes #cognitive #affective #motivation #schoolpsychology
Friday, January 15, 2021
The McGrew Model of Achievement Competence Model (MACM)--Standing on the shoulders of giants: CJSP article supplementary materials
Due to the page length constraints of the journal, significant background and explanatory information could not be presented in the article. Thus, I have "off-loaded" this material for supplementary viewing via on-line PPT slide shows and downloadable PDF files.
Five MACM PPT modules have been posted at SlideShare and can be viewed and downloaded from that site. For those who would prefer to directly download PDF versions of the PPT modules from one page...here it is. Below are the titles of the five modules and associated download links. In addition, the paper includes, in a table footnote, definitions for 16 self-regulatory constructs from a recent article by Sitzman and Ely (2011). That PDF file is also available from download below.
Enjoy.
The Model of Achievement Competence Motivation (MACM)
The Model of Achievement Competence Motivation (MACM) Part E: Crossing the Rubicon Commitment Pathway Model to Learning
The Model of Achievement Competence Motivation (MACM) is a series of slide modules. By clicking on the link you can view the slides at SlideShare. This is the fifth and final (Part E) in the series. This one is brief...only 11 slides. Crossing the Rubicon Commitment Pathway Model to Learning. There will be a total of five modules. The modules will serve as supplemental materials to "The Model of Achievement Competence Motivation (MACM)--Standing on the shoulders of giants" (McGrew, in press, 2021 - in a forthcoming special issue on motivation in the Canadian Journal of School Psychology)
You should be able to access the prior modules (A-C) from the link above.
Click here for prior "beyond IQ" labeled posts at this blog.
Monday, January 04, 2021
The Model of Achievement Competence Motivation (MACM): Part A - Introduction to module series
The Model of Achievement Competence Motivation (MACM) is a series of slide modules. By clicking on the link you can view the slides at SlideShare. This is the first (Part A) in the series. The
modules will serve as supplemental materials to "The Model of Achievement
Competence Motivation (MACM)--Standing on the shoulders of giants"
(McGrew, in press, 2021 - in a forthcoming special issue on motivation in the
Canadian Journal of School Psychology)
Click here for prior "beyond IQ" labeled posts at this blog.
Saturday, August 11, 2018
Beyond IQ: Mining the “no-mans-land” between Intelligence and IQ: Journal of Intelligence special issue
Joel Schneider and I briefly touched in this topic in our soon to be published CHC intelligence theory update chapter. Below is the select text and some awesome figures crafted by Joel.
Our simplified conceptual structure of knowledge abilities is presented in Figure 3.10. At the center of overlapping knowledge domains is general knowledge—knowledge and skills considered important for any member of the population to know (e.g., literacy, numeracy, self-care, budgeting, civics, etiquette, and much more). The bulk of each knowledge domain is the province of specialists, but some portion is considered important for all members of society to know. Drawing inspiration from F. L. Schmidt (2011, 2014), we posit that interests and experience drive acquisition of domain-specific knowledge.
In Schmidt's model, individual differences in general knowledge are driven largely by individual differences in fluid intelligence and general interest in learning, also known as typical intellectual engagement (Goff & Ackerman, 1992). In contrast, individual differences in domain-specific knowledge are more driven by domain-specific in-terests, and also by the “tilt” of one's specific abilities (Coyle, Purcell, Snyder, & Richmond, 2014; Pässler, Beinicke, & Hell, 2015). In Figure 3.11, we present a simplified hypothetical synthesis of several ability models in which abilities, interests, and personality traits predict general and specific knowledge (Ackerman, 1996a, 1996b, 2000; Ackerman, Bowen, Beier, & Kanfer, 2001; Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997; Ackerman & Rolfhus, 1999; Fry & Hale, 1996; Goff & Ackerman, 1992; Kail, 2007; Kane et al., 2004; Rolfhus & Ackerman, 1999; Schmidt, 2011, 2014; Schneider et al., 2016; Schneider & Newman, 2015; Woodcock, 1993; Ziegler, Danay, Heene, Asendorpf, & Bühner, 2012).
Click on images to enlarge.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Monday, November 14, 2016
Beyond Cognitive Abilities: An Integrative Model of Learning-Related Personal Competencies and Aptitude Trait Complexes
The two preliminary images can be enlarged by click on them.
Prior related "Beyond IQ" blog posts can be found here.
Wednesday, February 08, 2012
Saturday, April 25, 2009
US state persoanlitys as per the Big 5
Map Scroll.Technorati Tags: psychology, educational psychology, school psychology, personality, Big 5, geography

Monday, October 09, 2006
Cultural variation of the Big 5 personality traits
Technorati Tags: psychology, educatonal psychology, counseling psychology, clinical psychology, personalith, Big 5 personality, cultural differences, phenotype, Gene Expression
powered by performancing firefox
Monday, May 29, 2006
Big 5 personality traits and CHC intelligence theory: Lets hear it for being old and cantankerous!

In the mind of most quantoid psychometricians, CHC intelligence theory (aka, Gf-Gc theory) and the Big 5 Personality Theory are the most empirically sound and comprehensive taxonomies of human intelligence and personality. The relations between the Big 5 personality traits and select CHC broain domains (particularly Gf and Gc) have been actively studied during the past decade. However,much of this personality-intelligence relationship research has suffered from model specification error -- the failure to include important constructs in the empirical model being tested. Most personality-intelligence research has suffered from a narrow focus on only a small portion of the complete CHC human cognitive ability taxonomy (namely, Gf and Gc).
Thus, it was a pleasant surprise when I ran across the article below in my weekly search of literature. Baker and Bischsel (in press) investigated the relations between the Big 5 personality traits and the major broad CHC domains (as measured by the --note--WJ III conflict of interest disclosure required...I'm a coauthor of the WJ III). Not only did these investigators link the best cognitive and personality theories, they did so in a relatively large sample of 381 adults that was divided into developmentally-based subgroups of adults.
Not surprisingly, given the greater breadth of cognitive traits investigated and the ability to examine relations across different adult subgroups, this study confirms some prior findings, but more importantly, suggests some new personality-CHC trait relations previously not investigated or, which appear to vary as a function of adult developmetal status. I particularly like the finding that being more disagreeable in old age is associated with higher Gc. Maybe being a bit cantankerous late in life is a good deal !
- Baker, T. J. & Bichsel, J. (in press). Personality predictors of intelligence: Differences between young and cognitively healthy older adults. Personality and Individual Differences. (click here to view)
- Previous investigations of personality–intelligence relationships have sampled mainly young adults. The present study compared young and older groups in identifying personality predictors of cognitive abilities. A sample of 381 adults was administered the Woodcock–Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities and the Big Five Inventory-44. Participants were separated into three groups: young adults (aged 19–60), older adults that were cognitively comparable to the young, and cognitively superior older adults. Results indicated that Openness and Extraversion predicted cognitive abilities in the young and cognitively comparable old, but the specific abilities predicted were different for the two groups. In the cognitively superior older group, Agreeableness was a negative predictor of Gc (b= -.28) and Conscientiousness and Openness were predictors of short-term memory and visual and auditory processing.
Select excerpts from article
- Previous studies of intelligence–personality relations have one or more underlying limitations: (a) the sample is restricted to young adults, (b) a limited range of cognitive abilities and/or personality is measured, (c) a small sample size is utilized, and (d) reliability estimates are not reported, so null effects cannot be interpreted. This study seeks to address these limitations by utilizing a large sample of older and younger adults, measuring multiple cognitive abilities and all FFM personality constructs, and reporting reliability estimates for personality and cognition measures.
- This cross-sectional comparison suggests that personality–intelligence relationships change from younger to older adulthood. The results also suggests that there are diferences in personality–intelligence relationships between those who retain a normal level of overall cognitive ability in old age and those older adults who are cognitively superior. Perhaps most importantly, personality predictors of Gc differed among the three groups studied. Openness and Extraversion were important predictors of Gc in young adults, presumably the time of life when Gc undergoes more development, with those higher in Openness and lower in Extraversion scoring higher on Gc. These factors were not important predictors of Gc in the older groups. Given the robustness of the Openness–Gc relation in prior studies of young adults, the absence of this relation in both of the older groups in the present study suggests that Openness to experience is no longer necessary for the sustenance of crystallized ability in old age. Perhaps Openness is only important for Gc’s development in young adulthood.
- Instead of Openness, Agreeableness negatively predicted Gc in the cognitively superior old, suggesting that a disagreeable nature goes hand in hand with advanced vocabulary and general knowledge in old age. This result is in accordance with previous research that suggests that those who are highly intelligent are more independent (Harris, Vernon, & Jang, 2005); non-reliance on others means Agreeableness is less necessary.
- Interestingly, Conscientiousness positively predicted Ga and Gsm, which contradicts previous fndings that Conscientiousness has a negative relationship with intelligence (Moutafi et al., 2004; Moutafi et al., 2005). Moutafi et al. (2004) suggested there is an inverse relationship between Conscientiousness and intelligence because less intelligent people make up for their shortcomings by being more steadfast, and those with higher intellectual abilities do not need to be conscientious. Our results contradict this suggestion as our Conscientiousness–intelligence relationship was found only among the intellectually superior older adults. It may be that in old age Conscientiousness does not necessarily make one ‘‘smarter’’; rather, this trait enables older individuals to perform better on tests of cognition. This explanation makes more sense when considering the abilities that relate to Conscientiousness in this group. The tasks that make up Ga and Gsm appeared to elicit the most frustration in our older subjects, according to anecdotal reports from the research assistants. In addition, both Ga and Gsm, as measured by the WJ-III, tap attentional capacity (Mather & Woodcock, 2001). Previous research also suggests that Conscientiousness, at least in part, re?ects attentiveness (Digman & Inouye, 1986). It makes sense then that high scorers on Conscientiousness were also the best performers in terms of Ga and Gsm.
powered by performancing firefox