#WJIV Geometric-Quantoid (#geoquant) #intelligence art: A geoquant interpretation of #cognitive tests is worth a 1000 words—some similar “art parts” will be in #WJV technical manual

(You will need to click on image to enlarge figure to read)

I frequently complete data analyses that never see the light-of-day in a journal article. The results are all I need (at the time) to answer intriguing questions for me, and I then move on…or tantalize psychologists during a workshop or conference presentation.  Thus, this is non-peer reviewed information.  Below is one of my geoquant figures from a series of 2016 analyses (later updated in 2020) I completed on a portion of the WJ IV norm data.  To interpret you should have knowledge of the WJ IV tests—so you can understand the test variable abbbreviation names.  This MDS figure includes numerous interesting cognitive psychology constructs and theoretical principles based on multiple methodological lenses and supporting theory/research.  This was completed before I was introduced to psychometric network analysis methods as yet another visual means to understand intelligence test data.  You can play “where’s Waldo” and look for the following

• CHC broad cognitive factors
• Cognitive complexity information re WJ IV tests
• Kahneman’s two systems of cognition (System I/II thinking)
• Berlin BIS ability x content facet framework
• Two of Ackerman’s intelligence dimensions as per PPIK theory (intelligence-as-process; intelligence-as-knowledge)
• Cattell’s general fluid (gf) and general crystallized (gc) abilities, the two major domains in his five domain triadic theory of intelligence.…..lower case gf/gc notation is deliberate and indicates more “general” capacities (akin, in breadth, to Spearman’s g, who was Cattell’s mentor) and not the Horn and Carroll-like broad Gf and Gc
• Newlands process and product dominant distinction of cognitive abilities.

Enjoy.  MDS analyses and figures will also be in the forthcoming (Q1 2025)  WJ V technical manual (LaForte, Dailey, & McGrew, 2025, in preparation) but not in the form of these mutiple method/theory synthesis grand figures….stay tunned.  I may create such beautiful geoquant WJ V masterpieces once the WJ V is launched in Q1 2025.  We shall see.  I find these grand synthesis figures particularly useful when interpreting test rests…all critical information in one single figure…would you?

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.

Psychometric taxonomic models of intelligence: A visual tour from g to CHC

Click on images to enlarge:

 

Posted with Blogsy

Cattell's Gf-->Gc investment hypothesis--a visual-graphic explanation

I have made a number of posts about Cattell's investment hypothesis at IQs Corner. All such posts, that include a post with a good defintion, can be found here. Recently Joel Schneider and I included a nice visual explanation of the investment hypothesis in our 2012 CHC chapter. The figure below is made by the master of visual-graphic explanations--Joel Scheider.

Out treatment of this topic can be found in Schneider & McGrew's (2012) chapter on contemporary CHC theory, a chapter in Flanagan and Harrisons book, Contemporary Intellectual Assessment.

Click on image to enlarge

 

Posted with Blogsy

IQ tests and theory trends: Google Ngram visualizations

This past week I read a very intriguing article in the New York Times about a new data visualization tool offered by Google-- the Google Books Ngram Viewer. I then ran across a legal blog post where someone had investigated trends in different law terms...and I couldn't help myself but to give it a try.

As described by Robert Ambrogi at the legal blog:

"Using data drawn from the millions of books it has digitized covering the years 1500 to 2008, it lets you see and compare the frequency of words and phrases as they were used in books over a span of years or centuries. As Google puts it: “The Ngram Viewer lets you graph and compare phrases from these datasets over time, showing how their usage has waxed and waned over the years.”

I first had to experiment with how the entered terms worked. The terms are case sensitive. I checked each phrase with a variety of permutations to maximum the "hit rate"...and then ran some phrases together to ascertain and compare trends.

Below are my results with a few comments--the data tend to speak for themselves. I found that most of what I searched for did not emerge until after 1940...so that is where each graph starts. It is also important to note that the graphs only go up thru 2008...it would be nice to see the graphs up today

Cool stuff. Double click on each graph to enlarge.

This chart suggests that the cognitive ability domains of Gv (Visual Processing), Ga (Auditory Processing), and Processing Speed (Gs) have become hotter topics than Gf (Fluid Intelligence), Gc (Crystallized Intelligence), Gsm (Short term Memory), and Glr (Long term Retrieval). Interesting.

One very clear observation. Among the non-Wechsler intelligence batteries, the Stanford Binet has dropped dramatically over time, while the "newbies" on the IQ testing block (WJ, DAS, KABC, CAS) have made been the focus of more writing since 1990. Note, "Wechsler Intelligence", when included, is the clear winner across time. I left it out so the trends for the "other" batteries would be more distinct.

As I have written about many times, contemporary Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) intelligence theory has become the consensus theory of intelligence. This interesting graph supports this conclusion, especially from 1997 to 2008. Also, if one clicks on the search term in the summary table, one is taken to a page of the Google books that included the term. Click here to see example for CHC theory.

I think many of the trends noted above are due to emergence of Gf-Gc theory to CHC theory with the publication of the 1989 WJ-R. I've written about this critical theory-to-practice birth period here and here.

- iPost using BlogPress from my Kevin McGrew's iPad

intelligence IQ tests IQ scores CHC theory Cattell-Horn-Carroll human cognitive abilities psychology school psychology individual differences cognitive psychology neuropsychology special education educational psychology psychometrics psychological assessment psychological measurement IQs Corner neuroscience neurocognitive cognitive abilities cognition Woodcock Johnson PASS CAS Wechsler Intelligence Batteries Kaufman Assessment Battery Differential Ability Scales Gardner multiple intelligences Sternberg Triarchic theory

Wikipedia article 'Raymond Cattell'

Read about Raymond Cattell on Wikipedia

Sent from KMcGrew iPhone (IQMobile)

Gf=g revisted: Maybe not

Does Gf=g?

The possibility that Gf is isomorphic with general intelligence (g - if you believe g exists) has been discussed/debated in many research articles during the past few decades.  Kvist and Gustafsson (2008) recently took a new approach to investigating the viability of the Gf=g hypothesis [The reference and the journal abstract are included at the bottom of this post.]  These researchers use Cattell's investment theory to test the hypothesis. They argue, as per an extension of Catell's Investment hypothesis, that in populations with homogeneous learning experiences the Gf=g relationship would hold, while in more heterogenous populations the relationship between Gf and g would not approach unity.  As noted in their abstract and article, their research confirmed their hypothesis. 

They then attempt to explalin the lack of the Gf=g relation in other studies as per population/sample differences (viz., the failure to find this relation is possibly due to samples that are heterogeneous with regard to differential opportunities to develop knowledge and skills).  They attempt to explain Carroll's (2003) failure to find Gf=g in an analysis of the WJ-R norm data.  According to Kvist and Gustafsoon:

•  "in the study by Carroll (2003) previously referred to, which failed to find the perfect relation between Gf and g, the matrices analyzed were pooled across the ages from kindergarten to adulthood, and this may have caused a population heterogeneity which prevented the perfect relation to appear.  These data could be reanalyzed with the data organized into homogeneous age groups to test this hypothesis." (p. 433).

As coauthor of the more current Woodcock-Johnson III (where the broad CHC constructs [Gf, Gc, Glr, etc.] have even better construct validity than the WJ-R), I thought I'd take a peak at the Gf-->g loadings in the age-differentiated analyses reported in the WJ III Technical Manual (McGrew & Woodcock, 2001).  Below are the Gf loadings on g (by five age-differentiated groups), as well as other broad factor loadings that were of similar magnitude or higher in each respective group (click here for more complete summary tables).

• 6 to 8 years --   Gf (.96), Ga (.98)
• 9 to 13 years -- Gf (.89), Gsm (.91)
• 14-19 years  --  Gf (.92), .Gc (.90)
• 20-39 years --   Gf (.92), Ga (.96), Glr (.95)
• 40 and above -- Gf (.94), Ga (.97)

What to conclude? First, if I can find the time, I could re-run these models and constrain the Gf-->g loading to 1.0 and do a chi-square difference test (alas...so much data...so little time).  However, it is my experience that latent factor loadings in the high .80's and low .90's typically fail this test.  More importantly, notice the fact that other broad CHC abilities show latent factor g loadings equal to (and sometimes a bit higher) than Gf.  The above results, which follow Kvist and Gustafsson's recommendation to analyze the data by different age levels (and not pool into a single grand wide-age span sample), in my judgement, failsto support their hypotheses for the failure to find the Gf=g relation.  So....the Kvist and Gustafsson findings need to be tempered with the possible alternative hypothesis that studies may or may not replicate the Gf=g relation due to study differences in the type and breadth of markers used to operationalize ability constructs (that are then modeled to load on g).


Kvist, A. & Gustafsson, J-E. (2008) The relation between fluid intelligence and the general factor as a function of cultural background: A test of Cattell's Investment theory.  Intelligence, 36, 422-436 (click to view)

• Abstract:  According to Cattell's [Cattell, R.B. (1987). Intelligence: Its structure, growth and action. New York: North-Holland.]Investment theory individual differences in acquisition of knowledge and skills are partly the result of investment of FluidIntelligence (Gf) in learning situations demanding insights in complex relations. If this theory holds true Gf will be a factor of General Intelligence (g) because it is involved in all domains of learning. The purpose of the current study was to test the Investment theory, through investigating the effects on the relation between Gf and g of differential learning opportunities for different subsets of a population. A second-order model was fitted with confirmatory factor analysis to a battery of 17 tests hypothesized to measure four broad cognitive abilities The model was estimated for three groups with different learning opportunities (N=2358 Swedes, N=620 European immigrants, N=591 non-European immigrants), as well as for the total group. For this group the g–Gf relationship was .83, while it was close to unity within each of the three subgroups. These results support the Investment theory.
• 
  

Technorati Tags: psychology, educational psychology, school psychology, neuropsychology, cognition, intelligence, IQ tests, IQ scores, Gf, fluid reasoning, g, general intelligence, CHC, CHC theory, John Carroll, Raymond Catell, WJ III, Woodcock-Johnson

CHC Intelligence article now "in press"

Shameless plug update of prior post. My article (McGrew, K. --- Editorial: CHC theory and the human cognitive abilities project: Standing on the shoulders of the giants of psychometric intelligence research" is now officially "in press" in Intelligence. A copy can be viewed at the following link. Until it is published, the formal citation should be:

• McGrew, K. S., CHC theory and the human cognitive abilities project: Standing on the shoulders of the giants of psychometric intelligence research, Intelligence (2008), doi:10.1016/j.intell.2008.08.004

Enjoy

Technorati Tags: intelligence, Human Cognitive Abilities, WMF, CHC, Cattell-Horn-Carroll Theory, IQ, IQ tests, IQ scores, school psychology, educational psychology, cognition, neuropsychology, psychometrics

In press CHC theory overview and HCA project manuscript

I'm pleased to announce that the following manuscript re: CHC (Cattell-Horn-Carroll ) theory and the Human Cognitive Abilities (HCA) project is now "in press" in the journal Intelligence. Readers may be particularly interested in the CHC Theory model figure (Figure 1) which represents the most comprehensive overview of contemporary CHC theory.


McGrew, K. S. (in press). CHC Theory and the Human Cognitive Abilities Project: Standing on the Shoulders of the Giants of Psychometric Intelligence Research. Intelligence.

As per the the Scholary Posting provision of the journals publication agreement, I've made a pre-publication copy of the submitted manuscript available at the HCA Archive web page (it can be found on the "HCA Project Communications and Announcements" branch).

Technorati Tags: psychology, educational psychology, cognitive, cognition, intelligence, neuropsychology, IQ, IQ tests, IQ scores, HCA, Human Cognitive Abilities, Woodcock-Munoz-Foundation, WMF, John Carroll, CHC, Cattell-Horn-Carroll, HCA project, correlation matrices

WMF Human Cognitive Abilities (HCA) archive project update 6-28-08

The free on-line WMF Human Cognitive Abilities (HCA) archive project was updated today. The major updates included the following:

• A number of new datasets (correlation matrices analyzed in Carroll's 1993 factor analysis meta-analysis) and original journal articles were added to the archive

• An on-line "working" inventory and bibliography of the John "Jack" Carroll correlation matrices being archived is now available. This inventory indicates the status of the archiving of the various datasets.

• A Request for Assistance section has been added.
  

• The HCA project needs help tracking down copies of old journal articles, dissertations, etc. for a number of datasets being archive. Please visit the "master bibliography/inventory" section of this archive and visit the on-line dataset/reference file. When viewing the on-line working inventory, manuscripts/references featured in the color red are those we are currently having trouble locating. If you have access to either a paper or e-copy of any of the designated "fugitive" documents, and would be willing to provide them to WMF to copy/scan (we would cover the costs), please contact Dr. Kevin McGrew at the email address listed at the site.

As of today, 57 of Jack Carroll's original correlation matrices are "in process" for archiving. 27 of the archived datasets are complete - both the correlation matrices and original publications have been posted. 28 other datasets are in various stages of readiness (e.g., either correlation matrix or original publication has been archived--but not both; dataset has been assigned for data entry; etc.).

Please join the WMF HCA listserv to receive routine email updates regarding the WMF HCA project.Technorati Tags: psychology, educational psychology, cognitive, cognition, intelligence, neuropsychology, IQ, IQ tests, IQ scores, HCA, Human Cognitive Abilities, Woodcock-Munoz-Foundation, WMF, John Carroll, CHC, Cattell-Horn-Carroll, HCA project, correlation matrices

IQ Bytes # 5: Cattell's "investment" theory hypothesis

Another IQ Byte from the same source as IQ Byte # 4. This tiny morsel explains Raymond Cattell's "investment theory" hypothesis. As stated by Kvist and Gustafsson:

The Investment theory postulates that in the development of the individual there is initially a single, general, relation-perceiving ability which is connected with the maturation of the brain. This ability, which was labeled Gf by Cattell, is thus primarily associated with genetic factors and neurological functioning. It can be applied to any sensory, motor or memory area, and Cattell argued that a child's rate of learning of different tasks (e.g., spatial, numerical, conceptual) depends on this general ability. In particular the child's:

• … rate of learning in fields demanding insights into complex relations – and these fields include especially the problems of reading, arithmetic, and abstract reasoning with which he struggles at school – will depend appreciably on his level of fluid intelligence (though motivation, goodness of teaching, etc., will still play their part, as with the acquisitions of low relational complexity). (Cattell, 1987, p. 139).

Thus, through practice and experience children develop knowledge and skills and according to the Investment theory these developed abilities (i. e., Gc) are influenced by Gf and by effort, motivation and interest, and also by previous levels of Gc.

Technorati Tags: psychology, educational psychology, school psychology, neuropsychology, CHC theory, Gf, Gc, fluid intelligence, crystallized intelligence, Cattell, investment theory, cognition, intelligence, IQ, IQ tests, IQ scores

Powered by ScribeFire.

IQ Bytes # 4: CHC theory prominence

I found another "IQ Byte" size morsel in an "in press" article in the journal Intelligence by Kvist & J Gustafsson.

(Note: italics and links added by blog dictator)



On CHC/Gf-Gc theories prominence:

• Ever since Spearman (1904, 1927) introduced his “Theory of Two Factors”, issues concerning the structure of human intelligence have been the focus of attention of much research. While there certainly are differences in opinion regarding a wide range of issues, consensus has been achieved that a hierarchical representation of the structure of cognitive abilities is required to capture the complexities of the phenomenon (e.g., Carroll, 1993; Gustafsson, 1988; Jensen, 1998; Messick, 1992). The currently most widely accepted hierarchical model is the Carroll (1993) “Three-Stratum Model”. Since this model may be regarded as an extension of the Cattell and Horn “Gf–Gc” model (see e. g., Horn&Cattell, 1966) it is also referred to as the Carroll–Horn–Cattell (CHC) model (McGrew, 2005)

Technorati Tags: psychology, educational psychology, neuropsychology, school psychology, intelligence, IQ, IQ test, IQ scores, CHC, CHC theory, cognition

Powered by ScribeFire.