IQs Corner pub alert: CHC theory of cognitive abilities used to define and evaluate AI - #AI #CHC #intelligence #schoolpsychology #schoolpsychologists #IQ #EDPSY

An exciting new paper from the Dan Hendryks et al. at the Center for AI Safety  The center is  a nonprofit with the mission “to reduce societal-scale risks from artificial intelligence.”  In this just released paper, they propose a modified CHC theory definition/framework for evaluating AI: 

• “AGI is an AI that can match or exceed the cognitive versatility and proficiency of a well-educated adult.”

Given my extensive research and publications regarding the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory of cognitive abilities, I was pleasantly surprised when Dan reached out for my comments and suggested revisions to the paper.  

I was extremely impressed as Dan and his group had been involved in a deep dive in the CHC literature and had developed, without my involvement, an ingenuous internet-based CHC set of “test” items that can be submitted to different AI agents (GPT-4, GPT-5, Grok) to assess their CHC broad ability domain performance (to evaluate the extent to which AI agents demonstrate the “cognitive versatility and proficiency of a well-educated adult”).  I had zero involvement in the conceptualization or development of the AI modified/adapted CHC assessment framework and resulting CHC AI metrics. 

I want to express my appreciation to Dan for including me among the list of over 24 authors.  I’m very excited to monitor future developments by Dan and his group, as well as to see the impact of the CHC theory model on AI.

Links to secure copies of the paper (in various formats and social media platforms) are listed at the bottom of this post.  

Note.  Click on all images to enlarge for easy reading

Abstract

The lack of a concrete definition for Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) obscures the gap between today's specialized AI and human-level cognition. This paper introduces a quantifiable framework to address this, defining AGI as matching the cognitive versatility and proficiency of a well-educated adult. To operationalize this, we ground our methodology in Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory, the most em-pirically validated model of human cognition. The framework dissects general intelligence into ten core cognitive domains—including reasoning, memory, and perception—and adapts established human psychometric batteries to evaluate AI systems. Application of this framework reveals a highly “jagged” cognitive profile in contemporary models. While proficient in knowledge-intensive domains, current AI systems have critical deficits in foundational cognitive machinery, particularly long-term memory storage. The resulting AGI scores (e.g., GPT-4 at 27%, GPT-5 at 58%) concretely quantify both rapid progress and the substantial gap remaining before AGI.

Modified CHC model for evaluating AI agents

Click on image to enlarge.

As mentioned in the abstract, the paper reports on the CHC AGI capabilities of GPT-4 and GPT-5 in the following figure.  Click on images to enlarge.

I was pleased to see (on page 14 of the PDF paper) the following “intelligence as processor” figure which is based on work by myself and Joel Schneider. The model in Figure 3 (below) is based on Kevin S. McGrew and W. Joel Schneider. CHC theory revised: A visual-graphic summary of Schneider and McGrew's 2018 CHC update chapter. MindHub / IAPsych working paper, 2018.  http://www.iapsych.com/mindhubpub4.pdf.  

The Schneider & McGrew (2018) heuristic CHC information processing model is below the Figure 3 figure.  Click on images to enlarge.

Dan Hendrycks and the Center AI Safety provide brief overviews describing this work on LinkedIn as well as Twitter/X (both that can be monitored for comments).

A PDF copy of the paper can be downloaded here.  A clickable web-based version of the paper can be accessed here.

Exciting stuff !!

On the origin and evolution (from 1997 chapter to 2025 #WJV) of the #CHC #intelligence theories definitions: The missing CHC definition’s birth certificate

This is an updated version of an OBG (oldie but goodie) post originally made in 2017.  

The historical development of the CHC model of intelligence has been documented by McGrew (2005) and Schneider and McGrew (2012) and summarized by Kaufman and colleagues (Kaufman, 2009; Kaufman, Raiford & Coalson, 2016). Additional extensions and historical anecdotes were rececntly presented by McGrew (2023) in an article included in a special issue of the Journal of Intelligence focused on Jack Carroll’s tri-stratum theory @ 30 years. McGrew (2023) recommended that CHC theory should now be referred to as a group of CHC theories (i.e., a family of orthogonally correlated models) that recognizes the similarities and differences between the theoretical models of Cattell, Horn and Carroll.

An unexplained crucial, yet missing piece of the CHC story, is the origin of the original CHC broad and narrow ability definitions.  The CHC ability definition birth certificate, until recently, had not been revealed.  To fend off possible CHC “birther” controversies, I will now set the record straight again (as was first done in 2017) regarding the heritage of the past and current CHC definitions.

Given the involvement of both John Horn and Jack Carroll in revisions of the WJ-R and WJ III, which was the impetus for the combined CHC theory, it is not surprising that the relations between the “official” CHC ability definitions and the WJ tests were “reciprocal in nature, with changes in one driving changes in the other” (Kaufman et al., 2016, p. 253).  Furthermore, “the WJ IV represented the first revision in which none of the original CHC theorists was alive at the time of publication, producing and imbalance in this reciprocal relationship—-“the WJ IV manuals now often served as the official source for the latest CHC theory and model of cognitive abilities (J. Schneider, personal communication, March 15, 2015)” (Kaufman et al., 2016; p. 253).  Kaufman et al. noted that with the development of subsequent non-WJ CHC assessment and interpretation frameworks (e.g., Flanagan and colleagues CHC cross-battery assessment; Miller’s integrated school neuropsychology/CHC assessment model), some confusion has crept into what represents the authoritative “official” and “unofficial” definitions and sources.  

In Schneider & McGrew (2012) and Schneider & McGrew (2018), the incestuous nature of the evolution of the CHC definitions continued by building primarily on the McGrew (2005) definitions, which in turn were reflected in the 2001 WJ III manuals, which in turn drew from McGrew (1997).  In my original 2017 post regarding this topic, it was judged time to divorce the official CHC definitions from the WJ series and authors (particularly myself, Kevin McGrew). 

However, the CHC birth certificate is still often questioned.  Did the CHC definitions magically appear?  Did they come down in tablet form from a mountain top?  After the Cattell-Horn and Carroll models were first married by McGrew (1997), were the definitions the result of some form of immaculate conception?  Did  McGrew (1997) develop them unilaterally?  

Here is….the “rest of the story.”  

The original CHC definitions were first presented in McGrew’s (1997) chapter where the individual tests from all major intelligence batteries where classified as per the first integration of the Cattell-Horn and Carroll models of cognitive abilities (then called a “proposed synthesized Carroll and Horn-Cattell Gf-Gc framework”).  In order to complete this analysis, I (Kevin McGrew) needed standard CHC broad and narrow definitions—but none existed.  I consulted the Bible…Carroll’s Human Cognitive Abilities (1993).

I developed the original definitions (primarily the narrow ability definitions) by abstracting definitions from Carroll’s (1993) book.  After completing the first draft of the definitions, I sent them to Carroll. He graciously took time to comment and edit the first draft. I subsequently revised the definitions and sent them back. Jack and I engaged in several iterations until he was comfortable with the working definitions. As a result, the original narrow ability definitions published in McGrew (1997) had the informal stamp of approval of Carroll, but not of Horn. The official CHC definition birth certificate should list Carroll and McGrew as the parents.  

Since then the broad and narrow CHC ability definitions have been parented by McGrew (McGrew & Woodcock, 2001; McGrew, 2005; McGrew et al., 2014) and more recently, uncle Joel Schneider (Schneider & McGrew, 2012; Schneider & McGrew, 2018). The other WJ III and WJ IV authors (Mather, Schrank, and Woodcock) served as aunts and uncles at various points in the evolution of the definitions, resulting in the current “unofficial” definitions being in the WJ IV technical manual (McGrew et al., 2014) and the Schneider & McGew (2018) chapter. 

With new data-based insights from the the validity analysis of the norm data from the forthcoming WJ V (LaForte, Dailey & McGrew, 2025, in preparation), the WJ V technical manual will provide, yet again, a slightly new and improved set of CHC definitions.  Stay tunned.

No doubt the WJ V 2025 updated CHC definitions will still have a clear Carroll/McGrew, WJ III /WJ IV/WJ V and Joel Schneider genetic lineage (McGrew, 1997—>McGrew & Woodcock, 2001—>McGrew, 2005—>Schneider & McGrew, 2012—>McGrew et al., 2014—>Schneider & McGrew, 2012, 2018).  We (Schneider and McGrew) are reasonably comfortable with this fact.  However, we hope that the WJ—>WJ V set of CHC definitions will eventually move out of the influence of the WJ/CHC house and establish a separate residence, identity, and process for future growth.  I am aware that Dr. Dawn Flanagan and colleagues are working on a new revision of their CHC cross-battery book and related software and will most likely include a new set of revised defintions.  Perhaps a melding with the WJ V technical manual definition appendix with the work of Flanagan et al. would be a good starting point.  Perhaps some group or consortium of interested professionals could be established to nurture, revise, and grow the CHC defintions.

CHC theory update: Significant changes to the narrow Gs abilities

See my chapter with Joel Schneider for discussion.

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

Kevin McGrew, PhD

Educational Psychologist

Director, Institute for Applied Psychometrics

IAP

www.themindhub.com

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

CHC taxonomy update: Large-scale Gv spatial navigation abilities proposed entry into taxonomy

Joel Schneider and I, in our new CHC chapter, recommend that large-spatial Gv navigation abilities be included in the CHC taxonomy. Evidence is strong. Measures are far and few between—a potential place for good dissertation research and instrument development, especially with computer-administered test technology.

Click images to enlarge.

The new Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) periodic table of cognitive elements: Build your own

The latest and greatest CHC periodic table of cognitive elements is now available!

I've been meaning to make this post for a long time.  Below are the front and back images of my official CHC periodic table of cognitive elements.  This revision reflects Dr. Joel Schneider and my CHC theory update chapter to be published this fall (I believe next month) in the latest CIA (contemporary intellectual assessment) book.

Some of you may be familiar with the fact that, for the prior version, I had the table professionally printed (one sheet...both sides used) and laminated.  I distributed these during some of my presentations and at conferences.  The response was always positive.  My original plan was to have a new batch professionally printed and laminated and to make them available for a nominal fee via PayPal.  However, I was stalled by the details of having to deal with different state sales taxes, accepting payments, packaging, and mailing.  Instead, I am now providing interested people with the actual JPEG images (click here to download).  You can print your own copy and laminate if you want.  Build your own CHC periodic table of cognitive elements!

A PDF copy of the latest definitions, abstracted from our chapter, can be found here.

Enjoy.

Click on images to enlarge.

Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory of cognitive abilities (v2.5) "official" broad and narrow defilntions

This was first published 7-10-17.  A minor edit to the working memory capacity code (Wc and not WM) was made 7-20-17.

CHC broad and narrow ability definitions (07-20-17)-v 2.5

(Abstracted from: Schneider, W. J., & McGrew, K. S. (in press). The Cattell-Horn-Carroll Theory of Cognitive Abilities. In D. P. Flanagan & Erin M .McDonough (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests and issues (4^th ed.,) New York: Guilford Press.)

Narrow abilities with bold font = major ability; regular font = minor ability.  If all factor codes are regular font under a broad ability = insufficient data to classify as major or minor (Schneider & McGrew, in press).   Italic narrow factor code font designates “tentative” abilities.   Broad ability color codes (as per Ackerman et al.’s PPIK model of intelligence).  Blue – Intelligence-as-process; Gray – Intelligence-as-knowledge; Green – Intelligence-as-Process (speed/fluency); Red = other tentatively identified broad abilities.

 Dr. Joel Schneider and I have recently submitted our new/revised Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory chapter for publication in the 4th edition of the Flanagan and Harrison Contemporary intellectual assessment book (see reference above).  Most of the CHC broad and narrow definitions did not change, some changed in minor ways, and others changed significantly.  The rationale for changes will be presented in our chapter when the book is published.  Here I present the abstracted up-to-date definitions.  A PDF copy an be downloaded here.  Be sure to purchase the book when it becomes available to learn more about the changes in some of the definitions and proposed revisions to CHC theory.

Fluid reasoning (Gf): The use of deliberate and controlled procedures (often requiring focused attention) to solve novel “on the spot” problems that cannot be solved by using previously learned habits, schemas, and scripts.

·   Induction (I): The ability to observe a phenomenon and discover the underlying principles or rules that determine its behavior. This ability is also known as rule inference.

·   General sequential reasoning (RG): The ability to reason logically using known premises and principles. This ability is also known as deductive reasoning or rule application.

·   Quantitative reasoning (RQ): The ability to reason with quantities, mathematical relations, and operators.

·   Reasoning Speed (RE):  The ability to reason with quantities, mathematical relations, and operators.

·   Piagetian Reasoning (RP):  Seriation, conservation, classification and other cognitive abilities as defined by Piaget’s developmental theory.

Short-term working memory (Gwm): The ability to maintain and manipulate information in active attention. The mind’s mental “scratchpad” or “workbench.”  

·   Auditory short-term storage (Wa):  The ability to encode and maintain verbal information in primary memory.

·   Visual-spatial short-term storage (Wv): The ability to encode and maintain visual information in primary memory.

·   Attentional Control (AC):  The ability to manipulate the spotlight of attention flexibly to focus on task-relevant stimuli and ignore task irrelevant stimuli. Sometimes referred to as spotlight or focal attention, focus, control of attention, executive controlled attention, or executive attention.

·   Working memory capacity (WM):  The ability to manipulate information in primary memory.  Technically not a narrow ability (WMC = short-term storage + AC).

Learning efficiency (Gl):  The ability the ability to learn, store, and consolidate new information over periods of time measured in minutes, hours, days, and years.

·   Associative memory (MA):  The ability to form a link between two previously unrelated stimuli such that the subsequent presentation of one of the stimuli serves to activate the recall of the other stimuli.

·   Meaningful memory (MM):  The ability to remember narratives and other forms of semantically related information.

·   Free recall memory (M6): The ability to recall lists in any order.

Visual-spatial processing (Gv):  The ability to make use of simulated mental imagery to solve problems.  Perceiving, discriminating and manipulating images in the “mind’s eye.”

·   Visualization (Vz):  The ability to perceive complex visual patterns and mentally simulate how they might look when transformed (e.g., rotated, changed in size, partially obscured, and so forth).

·   Speeded rotation (SR):  The ability to solve problems quickly using mental rotation of simple images. This ability is similar to Vz but is distinct because as it involves the speed at which mental rotation tasks can be completed.

·   Imagery (IM):  The ability to voluntarily mentally produce very vivid images of objects, people or events that are not actually present.

·   Closure speed (CS):  The ability to quickly identify and access a familiar, meaningful visual object stored in long-term memory from incomplete or obscured (e.g., vague, partially obscured, disguised, disconnected) visual cues of the object without knowing in advance what the object is.

·   Flexibility of closure (CF):  The ability to identify a visual figure or pattern embedded in a complex distracting or disguised visual pattern or array, when one knows in advance what the pattern is.

·   Visual memory (MV):  The ability to remember complex visual images over short periods of time (less than 30 seconds).

·   Spatial scanning (SS):  The ability to quickly and accurately survey (visually explore) a wide or complicated spatial field or pattern with multiple obstacles and identify a target configuration or identify a path through the field to a target end point.

·   Serial perceptual integration (PI):  The ability to recognize an object after only parts of it are shown in rapid succession.

·   Length estimation (LE):  The ability to visually estimate the length of objects (without using measurement instruments).

·   Perceptual illusions (IL):  The ability to not be fooled by visual illusions.

·   Perceptual alternations (PN): Consistency in the rate of alternating between different visual perceptions.

·   Perceptual speed (P):  See definition under Gs.  P has a secondary loading on Gv.

Auditory processing (Ga):  The ability to discriminate, remember, reason, and work creatively (on) auditory stimuli, which may consist of tones, environmental sounds, and speech units.

·   Phonetic coding (PC):  The ability to distinctly hear phonemes, blend sounds into words, and segment words into parts, sounds, or phonemes. 

·   Speech sound discrimination (US):  The ability to detect and discriminate differences in speech sounds (other than phonemes) under conditions of little or no distraction or distortion.

·   Resistance to auditory stimulus distortion (UR):  The ability to hear words or extended speech passages correctly under conditions of distortion or background noise.

·   Maintaining and judging rhythm (U8):  The ability to recognize and maintain a musical beat.

·   Memory for sound patterns (UM):  The ability to retain (on a short-term basis) auditory codes such as tones, tonal patterns, or speech sounds.

·   Musical discrimination and judgment (U1 U9):  The ability to discriminate and judge tonal patterns in music with respect to melodic, harmonic, and expressive characteristics (phrasing, tempo, harmonic complexity, intensity variations).

·   Absolute pitch (UP):  The ability to perfectly identify the pitch of tones.

·   Sound localization (UL):  The ability to localize heard sounds in space.

Comprehension-knowledge (Gc):  The ability to comprehend and communicate culturally-valued knowledge. Gc includes the depth and breadth of both declarative and procedural knowledge and skills such as language, words, and general knowledge developed through experience, learning and acculturation.

·   Language Development (LD):  An intermediate stratum ability to comprehend and communicate using language. The general understanding of spoken language at the level of words, idioms, and sentences. 

·   Lexical knowledge (VL):  The knowledge of the definitions of words and the concepts that underlie them. Vocabulary knowledge.

·   General (verbal) information (K0):  The breadth and depth of knowledge that one’s culture deems essential, practical, or worthwhile for everyone to know.

·   Listening ability (LS): The ability to understand speech.  This ability starts with comprehending single words and increases to long complex verbal statements.

·   Communication ability (CM):  The ability to use speech to communicate effectively.

·   Grammatical sensitivity (MY):  The awareness of the formal rules of grammar and morphology of words in speech.

Domain-specific knowledge (Gkn):  The depth, breadth, and mastery of specialized declarative and procedural knowledge (knowledge not all members of a society are expected to have).  The Gkn domain is likely to contain more narrow abilities than are currently listed in the CHC model.

·   General science information (K1):  The range of scientific knowledge (e.g., biology, physics, engineering, mechanics, electronics).

·   Knowledge of culture (K2):  The range of knowledge about the humanities (e.g., philosophy, religion, history, literature, music, and art).

·   Mechanical knowledge (MK):  Knowledge about the function, terminology, and operation of ordinary tools, machines, and equipment.

·   Foreign language proficiency (KL):  Similar to language development (see Gc) but in another language.

·   Knowledge of signing (KF):  The knowledge of finger spelling and signing (e.g., American Sign Language).

·   Skill in lip reading (LP):  Competence in the ability to understand communication from others by watching the movement of their mouths and expressions.

Reading and writing (Grw):  The depth and breadth of declarative and procedural knowledge and skills related to written language.

·   Reading comprehension (RC):  The ability to understand written discourse.

·   Reading decoding (RD):  The ability to identify words from text.

·   Reading speed (RS):  The rate at which a person can read connected discourse with full comprehension. Also listed under Gs.

·   Writing ability (WA):  The ability to use written text to communicate ideas clearly.

·   Spelling ability (SG):  The ability to spell words.

·   Writing speed (WS):  The ability to copy or generate text quickly.  Also listed under Gs and Gps.

·   English usage (EU): Knowledge of the mechanics of writing (e.g., capitalization, punctuation, and word usage).

Quantitative knowledge (Gq):   The depth and breadth of declarative and procedural knowledge related to mathematics. The Gq domain is likely to contain more narrow abilities than are currently listed in the CHC model.

·   Mathematical knowledge (KM):  The range of general knowledge, not performance of mathematic operations or the solving of problems.

·   Mathematical achievement (A3):  Measured (tested) mathematics achievement.

Retrieval fluency (Gr):  The rate and fluency at which individuals can access information stored in long-term memory.

·   Ideational fluency (FI):  The ability to rapidly produce a series of ideas, words, or phrases related to a specific condition or object.

·   Expressional fluency (FE):  The ability to rapidly think of different ways of expressing an idea.

·   Associational fluency (FA):  The ability to rapidly produce a series of original or useful ideas related to a particular concept.

·   Sensitivity to problems/alternative solution fluency (SP): The ability to rapidly think of several alternative solutions to a practical problem.

·   Originality/creativity (FO):  The ability to rapidly produce original, clever, and insightful responses (expressions, interpretations) to a given topic, situation, or task.

·   Speed of lexical access (LA):  The ability to rapidly retrieve words from an individual’s lexicon.  Verbal efficiency or automaticity of lexical access.  An intermediate stratum level ability.

·   Naming facility (NA):  The ability to rapidly call objects by their names.

·   Word fluency (FW):  The 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).

·   Figural fluency (FF):  The ability to rapidly draw or sketch as many things (or elaborations) as possible when presented with a nonmeaningful visual stimulus (e.g., a set of unique visual elements).

·   Figural flexibility (FX):  The ability to rapidly draw different solutions to figural problems.

Processing speed (Gs):  The ability to control attention to automatically, quickly and fluently perform relatively simple repetitive cognitive tasks. Attentional fluency or attentional speediness

·   Perceptual speed (P):  An intermediate stratum level ability that can be defined as the speed and fluency with which similarities or differences in visual stimuli (e.g., letters, numbers, patterns, etc.) can be searched and compared in an extended visual field.

·   Perceptual speed-search (Ps):  The speed and fluency of searching or scanning an extended visual field to locate one or more simple visual patterns

·   Perceptual speed-compare (Pc):  The speed and fluency of looking up and comparing visual stimuli that are side-by-side or more widely separated in an extended visual field.

·   Number facility (N):  The speed, fluency and accuracy in manipulating numbers, comparing number patterns, or completing basic arithmetic.

·   Reading speed (fluency) (RS):  The speed and fluency of reading text with full comprehension. Also listed under Grw.

·   Writing speed (fluency) (WS):  The speed and fluency of generating or copying words or sentences. Also listed under Grw and Gps.

Reaction and decision speed (Gt): The speed of making very simple decisions or judgments when items are presented one at a time.

·   Simple reaction time (R1):  Reaction time to the onset of a single visual or auditory stimulus.

·   Choice reaction time (R2):  Reaction time when a very simple choice must be made.

·   Inspection time (IT):  The speed at which differences in visual stimuli can be perceived.

·   Semantic processing speed (R4):   Reaction time when a decision requires some very simple encoding and mental manipulation of the stimulus content.

·   Mental comparison speed (R7):  The reaction time required when stimuli must be compared for a particular characteristic or attribute.

Psychomotor speed (Gps):   The ability to perform skilled physical body motor movements (e.g., movement of fingers, hands, legs) with precision, coordination, fluidity or strength.

·   Speed of limb movement (R3):  The speed of arm and leg movement. This speed is measured after the movement is initiated. Accuracy is not important.

·   Writing peed (fluency) (WS):  The speed at which written words can be copied. Also listed under Grw and Gps.

·   Speed of articulation (PT): The ability to rapidly perform successive articulations with the speech musculature.

·   Movement time (MT):  The time taken to physically move a body part (e.g., a finger) to make the required response, after a decision or choice has been made, in an elementary cognitive task.

Psychomotor abilities (Gp):  The ability to perform skilled physical body motor movements (e.g., movement of fingers, hands, legs) with precision, coordination, or strength. The Gp domain is likely to contain more narrow abilities than are currently listed in the CHC model.

·   Manual dexterity (P1):  The ability to make precisely coordinated movements of a hand or a hand and the attached arm.

·   Finger dexterity (P2):  The ability to make precisely coordinated movements of the fingers (with or without the manipulation of objects).

·   Static strength (P3):  The ability to exert muscular force to move (push, lift, pull) a relatively heavy or immobile object.

·   Gross body equilibrium (P4):  The ability to maintain the body in an upright position in space or regain balance after balance has been disturbed.

·   Multilimb coordination (P6):  The ability to make quick specific or discrete motor movements of the arms or legs.

·   Arm-hand steadiness (P7):  The ability to precisely and skillfully coordinate arm–hand positioning in space.

·   Control precision (P8):  The ability to exert precise control over muscle movements, typically in response to environmental feedback (e.g., changes in speed or position of object being manipulated).

·   Aiming (AI):  The ability to precisely and fluently execute a sequence of eye–hand coordination movements for positioning purposes.

Olfactory abilities (Go):  The ability to detect and process meaningful information in odors. The Go domain is likely to contain more narrow abilities than are currently listed in the CHC model.

·   Olfactory memory (OM): The ability to recognize previously encountered distinctive odors.

Tactile (haptic) abilities (Gh):   The ability to detect and process meaningful information in haptic (touch) sensations. It includes perceiving, discriminating and manipulating touch stimuli.  Currently there are no well-supported narrow Gh cognitive ability factors.

Kinesthetic abilities (Gk):  The ability to detect and process meaningful information in proprioceptive sensations. Currently there are no well-supported narrow Gk cognitive ability factors within Gk.

Emotional intelligence (Gei):  The ability to perceive emotions expressions, understand emotional behavior, and solve problems using emotions.

·     Emotion perception (Ep):  The ability to accurately recognize emotions in the face, voice, and behavior.

·     Emotion knowledge (Ek):  Knowledge of the antecedents of emotions and the consequences of emotional expression.

·     Emotion management (Em):  The ability to regulate one’s emotions deliberately and adaptively.

·     Emotion utilization (Eu):  The ability to make adaptive use of emotion, especially to facilitate reasoning.