#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?

WISC-III/WJ III cross-battery Guttman 2-D Radex analysis

One more WISC-III/WJ III cross-battery analysis--this time a 2-D Guttman Radex MDS model (click here).  As readers have noted, I've been on a bit of a data analysis binge this past week (in preparation for writing a manuscript---and after being refreshed by an actual 2+ week vacation) and have reported:  (a) WISC-III/WJ III cross-battery g+specific cog-ach relations SEM, (b) WJ III 2-D Guttman Radex MDS of WJ III norm sample ages 6-8, and (c) WJ III 3-D Guttman Radex MDS of ages 9-13 of norm sample.  It is hoped these analyses provide useful information in understanding the characteristics of the tests in the WJ III and Wechsler intelligence batteries.

Unfortunately this analysis is based on the WISC-III and not the more recent WISC-IV.  Nevertheless, the results still provide useful information on the WISC-III tests that are still present in the WISC-IV.

Given all I've written regarding the various MDS models, I'm going to only make a few comments and hope others take the presentation of these data to engage in additional discussion, interpretion, etc.----have some fun.

A few observations/comments:

• Gv tests (both WISC-III and WJ III) continue to surface on the more outer rings of the MDS models---suggesting that they are more lower-level perceptual/processing measures and do not capture complex Gv cognitive processing.  See my Gv comments on this the other day.  The same can be said for Ga tests.

• WJ III Understanding Directions is consistently one of the more cognitive complex tests.  And, it is largely a language-based measure of working memory (Gsm-MW).  Remember that as per the Radex model, cognitive complexity deals with the amount of elements/components that are processed.....and is not the same as abstract thinking (Gf-ish stuff).  WJ III Numbers Reversed also shows up close to the center, with WISC-III Digit Span not far behind.  Does this support the popular working memory=Gf/g research hypothesis?

• The Gc tests from both batteries appear similar in placement.

• As would be expected, the WJ III Gf tests (Concept Formation, Numerical Reasoning [which is a combo of Number Series and Number Matrices], and Analysis-Synthesis are within the center "cognitive complexity" circle.

I'm sure there is much more that can be gleaned, but I'll leave that to the readers to discover, debate, and discuss.  I actually think a 3-D MDS model is necessary to capture the characteristics of the measures...but I've run out of time and steam on these analysis.  Maybe at a later date.

A couple caveats I provided the other day are also relevant here--(a) I'm a coauthor of the WJ III (conflict of interest disclosure) and (b) these results have not been peer-reviewed

WJ III: 2-D MDS analysis ages 6-18

As promised, this is a follow-up to my posting of a 3-D Guttman Radex MDS model of WJ III tests. I'm now presenting a 2-D Radex model based on the analysis of all WJ III norm subjects from ages 6-18 (using the WJ III NU norms). You can view/download the pdf file by clicking here.

I could write an entire chapter on implications, hypotheses, etc. Instead, I'm going to make just a few comments and post a few questions in hopes that this approach to examining the characteristics of tests generates some interest. IMHO, MDS is an excellent analytic tool that provides a unique lens by which to augment our factor-analytic based understanding of cognitive ability tests. I wish more of us would complete these analyses with all major intelligence batteries.

A few thoughts/comments/questions:

• Note that Concept Formation is near the middle of the circle. This whole round of MDS analyses I've been posting is based on a concern (see J. Schneider comments) whether the CF test was a good measure of Gf....and if it was strongly related to g. As per MDS interpretation, the proximity of CF to the middle cross-hairs suggests it is one of the more "cognitively complex" tests in the entire WJ III battery. This would support its interpretation as a strong indicator of Gf and g.

• Notice that Sound Awareness (Ga/Gsm), Understanding Directions (Gsm/Gc), Applied Problems (Gq/Gf), Quantiative Concepts (Gq/Gf), and Verbal Comprehension (Gc) are also close to the middle - suggesting that they are all cognitively demanding measures in terms of the concept of cogntive complexity. And...interestingly they come from different CHC broad factors. I'm convinced that the reason Sound Awareness and Understanding Directions are cognitively complex is the major working memory load placed on subjects during these tasks. This should serve to remind us that cognitive complexity does NOT necessarily need to be associated with abstract "thinking" (Gf-ish) type tasks. Further notice that Auditory Working Memory is not that far away either. Do these findings support the research that suggest a strong relation between working memory (Gsm-MW) and Gf or g?

• Notice how "tight" or "cohesive" some of the respective CHC factor tests are. Clearly the Grw, Gq, Gc, Gf, and Gsm (except for MS) tests all tend to hang in the same proximity. In contrast notice the wide degree of distance between the WJ III Gv and Ga tests. Does this suggest that some broad CHC domains are more tight/cohesive while other domains are much broader (lower domain cohesion). What does this mean for test interpretation? What does this mean for understanding the theoretical nature of the different CHC factor domains?

• Notice the cool cognitive efficency (CE) quandrant. Isn't it sweet how most all the Gs and Gsm tests can be circumscribed in one area. Yet...there is distance between the CE tsts which probably is very informative in understanding differences in the characteristic process/content demands placed on subjects. Isn't this exciting?

• Is the fact that most Gv tests are far from the cognitive complexity center (as were most of the Wechsler Gv tests in the enclosed slide in the file) helping us understand why traditonal Gv tests are repeatedly found to be unrelated (statistically) to school achievement (esp. mathematics), when we know that considerable research indicates that Gv is important for mathematics. Does this tell us that we have yet, in the world of applied test development, failed to develop sufficiency complex and cognitively demanding Gv tests that would relate more to school achievement (e.g., visual-spatial working memory tests). Curious minds want to know.

• Like Gv, notice the distances between the Ga tests (which do form a nice psychometric factor when using traditonal factor methods). Incomplete Words is quite far away from Sound Blending, which in turn is closer to the acquired knowledge tests. Does this suggest that IW may be the more "pure" phonetic coding measure while SB is potentially influenced by training and education? Further note the location of Auditory Attention --- I've included it among the cognitive efficiency area. Is this telling us that the sound discrimination (Ga component) of the AA test is minimal while the selective attention (under distraction--ability to resist distractions) component is greater?

• I'm not comfortable with the interpretation of quandrant 4 in the model. Can others suggest ideas? I think part of the problem is that a 3-D model (like the one I posted the other day) may required to better account for the dimensionality of the complete set of WJ III tests.
  

I could stare at this forever and generate more thoughts, hypotheses, questions, etc. I'd like to leave that to others. Please feel free to start a thread discussing the potential benefits of examing cognitive and achievement tests via the lens of MDS analysis. It clearly is an under-utilized methodology that can help us better understand our measures. A problem is that most quantoids (myself include) have become seduced by the more sexy contemporary SEM (CFA) methods. Maybe it is time we go "back to the future."


Technorati Tags: psychology, school psychology, educational psychology, neuropsychology, CHC, CHC theory, IQ, IQ tests, intelligence, g, Guttman, Radex, MDS, WJ III, WJ III, test interpretation, Gv, Ga, Gsm, Glr, Gf, Gc, Grw, Gq, Gs

WJ III: Guttman Radex MDS analysis

More on "Gf=g revisited" thread (click here for original post) that produced some excellent discussion (click here) on the NASP listserv.

In response to the request for the application of Guttman's Radex MDS model to the Woodcock Johnson III (in age 9-13 norm sample), I looked through my old files and found a 3D MDS WJ III model that I completed a number of years ago. The slides have been posted in a pdf file for viewing. It would take a manuscript to explain and interpret everything....I hope the broad stroke hypotheses (esp. regarding the nature of three dimensions) stimulate some thought and discussion.

Yesterday I completed a new 2D model across all school-age subjects (6-18 years). I hope to post those findings within the week. Stay tunned.

[Conflict of interest disclosure - I'm a coauthor of the WJ III]


Technorati Tags: psychology, school psychology, educational psychology, neuropsychology, CHC, CHC theory, IQ, IQ tests, intelligence, g, Guttman, Radex, MDS, WJ III, WJ III, test interpretation, Gv, Ga, Gsm, Glr, Gf, Gc, Grw, Gq, Gs