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  My role was to review and integrate all available published and unpublished factor analysis research on all prior editions of the different SB legacy tests.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)

Stay tunned!!!! #WJV g and non-g multiple #CHC theoretical models to be presented in the forthcoming (2025) technical manual: Senior author’s (McGrew) position re the #pscyhometric #g factor and #bifactorg models.

(c) Copyright, Dr. Kevin S. McGrew, Institute for Applied Psychometrics (11-14-24)

Warning, may be TLDR for many. :).  Also, I will be rereading again multiple times and may tweak minor (not substantive) errors and post updates….hey….blogging has an earthy quality to it:)

        In a recent publication, Scott Decker, Joel Schneider, Okan Bulut and I (McGrew, 2023; click here to download and read) presented structural analysis of the WJ IV norm data using contemporary psychometric network analysis (PNA) methods.  As noted in a clip from the article below, we recommended that intelligence test researchers, and particularly authors and publishers of the respective technical manuals for cognitive test batteries, needed to broaden the psychometric structural analysis of a test battery beyond the traditional (and almost exclusive) relieance on “common cause” factor analysis (EFA and CFA) methods to include PNA analysis…to compliment, not supplant factor based analyses.

(Click on image to enlarge for easier reading)

         Our (McGrew et al., 2023) recommendation is consistent with some critics of intelligence test structural research (e.g., see Dombrowski et al., 2018, 2019; Farmer et al., 2020) who have cogently argued that most intelligence test technical manuals typically present only one of the major classes of possible structural models of cognitive ability test batteries.  Interestingly, many school psychology scholars who conduct and report independent structural analysis of a test battery also do something similar…they often only present one form of structural analysis—-namely, bifactor g analyses.  

        In McGrew et al. (2023) we recommended future cognitive ability test technical manuals embrace a more ecumenical multiple method approach and include, when possible, most all major classes of factor analysis models, as well as PNA. A multiple-methods research approach in test manuals (and journal publications by independent researchers) can better inform users of the strengths and limitations of IQ test interpretations based on whatever conceptualization of psychometric general intelligence (including models with no such construct) underlies each type of dimensional analysis. Leaving PNA methods aside for now, the figure below presents the four major families of traditional CHC theoretical structural models.  These figures are conceptual and are not intended to represent all nuances of factor models. 

(Click on image for a larger image to view)

         Briefly, the four major families of traditional “common cause” CHC CFA structural models (Carroll, 2003; McGrew et al., 2023) vary primarily in the specification (or lack thereof) of a psychometric g factor. The different families of CHC models are conceptually represented in the figure above. In these conceptual representations the rectangles represent individual (sub)tests, the circles latent ability factors at different levels of breadth or generality (stratum levels as per Carroll, 1993), the path arrows the direction of influence (the effect) of the latent CHC ability factors on the tests or lower-order factors, and the single double headed arrow all possible correlations between all CHC broad CHC factors (in the Horn no-g model in panel D).  
        The classic hierarchical g model “places a psychometric g stratum III ability at the apex over multiple broad stratum II CHC abilities” (McGrew et al., 2023, p. 2). This model is most often associated with Carroll (1993; 2003) and is called (in panel A in the above figure) the Carroll hierarchical g broad CHC model. In this model the shared variance of subsets of moderately to highly correlated tests are first specified as 10 CHC broad ability factors (i.e., the measurement model; Gf, Gc, Gv, etc.). Next the covariances (latent factor correlations) among the broad CHC factors are specified as being the direct result of a higher-order psychometric g factor (i.e., the structural model). 

        A sub-model under the Carroll hierarchical g broad CHC model includes three levels of factors—several first-order narrow (stratum I) factors, 10 second-order broad (stratum II) CHC factors, and the psychometric g factor (stratum III). This is called the Carroll hierarchical g broad+narrow CHC model in panel B in the figure above. In the above example, two first-order narrow CHC factors (auditory short-term storage-Wa; and auditory working memory capacity-Wc, which, in simple terms, is a factor defining auditory short-term memory tasks that also include heavy attentional control-based (AC as per Schneider & McGrew, 2018) active manipulation of stimuli—the essence of Gwm or working memory).  For illustrative purposes, a narrow naming facility (NA) first-order factor, which has higher-order effects or influences from broad Gs and Gr is specified for evaluation.  Wouldn’t you like to see the results of this hierarchical broad+narrow CHC model?  Well……..stay tunned for the forthcoming WJ V technical manual (Q1 2025; LaForte, Dailey, & McGrew, 2025, in preparation) and your dream will come true.

        The third model is the Horn no-g model (McGrew, et al., 2023).  John Horn long argued that psychometric g was nothing more than a statistical abstraction or artifact (Horn, 1998; Horn & Noll, 1997; McArdle, 2007; McArdle & Hofner, 2014; Ortiz, 2015) and did not represent a brain or biologically based real cognitive ability. This is represented by the Horn no-g broad CHC model in panel D. The Horn no-g broad CHC model is like the Carroll hierarchical g broad CHC model, but the 10 broad CHC factor intercorrelations are retained instead of specifying a higher- or second-order psychometric g factor. In other words, the measurement models are the same but the structural models are different. In some respects the Horn no-g broad CHC model is like contemporary no-g psychometric network analysis models (see McGrew, 2023) that eschew the notion of a higher-order latent psychometric g factor to explain the positive definite correlation variance between individual tests (or first-order latent factors in the case of the Horn no-g model) in an intelligence battery (Burgoyne et al. 2022; Conway &Kovacs, 2015; Euler et al., 2023; Fried, 2020; Kan et al. 2019; Kievit et al. 2016; Kovacs & Conway, 2016, 2019; McGrew, 2023; McGrew et al., 2023; Protzko & Colom 2021a, 2021b, van der Maas et al. 2006, 2014, 2019).  Over the past decade I’ve become more aligned with no-g psychometric network CHC models (e.g, process overlap theory or POT) or Horn’s no-g CHC model, and have, tongue-in-check, referred to the elusive psychometric g ability (not the psychometric g factor)  as the “Loch Ness Monster of Psychology” (McGrew, 2021, 2022).

        Three of these common cause CHC structural models (viz., Carroll hierarchical g broad CHC model, Carroll hierarchical g broad+narrow CHC, and Horn no-g broad CHC), as well as Dr. Hudson Golino and colleagues hierarchical exploratory graph analysis psychometric network analysis models (that topic is saved for another day), are to be presented in the structural analysis section of the forthcoming WJ V technical manual validity chapter.  Stay tunned for some interesting analysis and interpretations in the “must read” WJ V technical manual. Yes….assessment professionals, a well written and thourough technical manual can be your BFF!

        Finally, the fourth family of models, which McGrew et al. (2023) called g-centric models, are commonly known as bifactor g models. In the bifactor g broad CHC model (panel C in figure) the variance associated with a dominant psychometric g factor is first extracted from all individual tests. The residual (remaining) variance is modeled as 10 uncorrelated (orthogonal) CHC broad factors. The bifactor g model was excluded from the WJ V structural analysis. Why…..after I (McGrew et al., 2023) recommended that all four classes of traditional CHC structural analysis models should be presented in a test batteries technical manual????
        Because…the complexity involved in specifying and evaluating bi-factor g models with 60 cognitive and achievement tests was found to be extremely complex and fraught with statistical convergence issues.  Trust me…I tried hard and long to run bifactor g models for the WJ V norm data.  It was possible to run bifactor g models separately on the cognitive and achievement sets of WJ V tests, but that does not allow for the direct comparison to the other three structural models that utilized all 60 cognitive and achievement tests in single CFA models.  Instead, at of the time the WJ V technical manual analyses were being completed and are now being summarized, the Riverside Insights (RI) internal psychometric research team was tackling the complex issues involved in completing WJ V bifactor g models, first in the separate sets of cognitive and achievement tests.  Stay tunned for future professional conference paper presentations, white papers, or journal article submissions by the RI research team.

        Furthermore, the decision to not include bifactor g models does not suggest that the evaluation of WJ V bifactor g-centric CHC models is not important. As noted by Reynolds and Keith (2017), “bifactor models may serve as a useful mathematical convenience for partitioning variance in test scores” (p. 45; emphasis added). The bifactor g model pre-ordains “that the statistically significant lion’s share of IQ battery test variance must be of the form of a dominant psychometric g factor (Decker et al., 2021)” (McGrew, et al., 2023, p. 3). Of the four families of CHC structural models, the bifactor g model is the conceptual and statistical model that supports the importance of general intelligence (psychometric g) and the preeminence of the full-scale or global IQ score over broad CHC test scores (e.g., see Dobrowski et al., 2021; Farmer et al., 2021a, 2021b; McGrew et al., 2023)—a theoretical position inconsistent with the position of the WJ V senior author (yours truly) and with Dr. Richard Woodcock’s legacy (see additional footnote comments at the end). It is important to note that there is a growing body of research that has questioned the preference for bifactor g cognitive models based only on statistical fit indices, as structural model fit statistics frequently are biased in favor of bifactor solutions. Per Bonifay et al. (2017),“the superior performance of the bifactor model may be a symptom of ‘overfitting’—that is, modeling not only the important trends in data but also capturing unwanted noise” p. 184–185). For more on this, see Decker (2021), Dueber and Toland (2021), Eid et al., (2018), Greene et al. (2022), and Murray and Johnson(2013). See Dombroski et al. (2020) for a defense of some of the bifactor g criticisms.

        Recognizing the wisdom of Box’s (1976) well known axiom that “all models are wrong, but some are useful” the WJ V technical manual authors (LaForte, Dailey, McGrew, 2025, in preparation) encourage independent researchers to use the WJ V norm data to evaluate and compare bifactor g CHC models with the models presented in forthcoming WJ V technical, as well as  alternative models (e.g., PASS, process overlap theory, Cattell’s triadic Gf-Gc theory, etc.) suggested in the technical manual.

Footnote:  Woodcock’s original (and enduring) position (Woodcock, 1978, 1997, 2002) regarding the validity and purpose of a composite IQ-type g score is at odds with the bifactor g CHC model. With the publication of the original WJ battery, Woodcock (1978) acknowledged the pragmatic predictive value of statistically partitioning cognitive ability test score variance into a single psychometric g factor, with the manifest total IQ score serving as a proxy for psychometric g. Woodcock stated “it is frequently convenient to use some single index of cognitive ability that will predict the quality of cognitive behavior, on the average, across a wide variety of real-life situations. This is the [pragmatic] rationale for using a single score from a broad-based test of intelligence” (p.126). However, Woodcock further stated that “one of the most common misconceptions about the nature of cognitive ability (particularly in discussions characterized by such labels as ‘IQ’ and ‘intelligence’) is that it is a single quality or trait held in varying degrees by individuals, something like [mental] height” (p. 126). In several publications Woodcock’s position regarding the importance of an overall general intelligence or IQ score was clear—“The primary purpose for cognitive testing should be to find out more about the problem, not to obtain an IQ” (Woodcock, 2002, p.6; also see Woodcock, 1997, p. 235). Two of the primary WJ III, WJ IV, and WJ V authors have conducted research or published articles (see Mather & Schneider, 2023; McGrew, 2023; McGrew et al., 2023) consistent with Woodcock’s position and have advocated for a Horn no-g or emergent property no-g CHC network model. Additionally, based on the failure to identify a brain-based biological g (i.e., neuro-g; Haier et al., 2024) in well over a century of research since Spearman first proposed g in the early 1900’s, McGrew (2020, 2021) has suggested that g may be the “Loch Ness Monster of psychology.” This does not imply that psychometric g is unrelated to combinations of different neurocognitive mechanisms, such as brain-wide neural efficiency and the ability of the whole-brain network, which is comprised of various brain subnetworks and connections via white matter tracts, to efficiently adaptively reconfigure the global network in response to changing cognitive demands (see Ng et al., 2024 for recent compelling research linking psychometric g to multiple brain network mechanisms and various contemporary neurocognitive theories of intelligence; NOTE…click link to download PDF of article and read sufficiently to impress your psychologist friends!!!!).

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.

The origins of the current CHC definitions: Where is the CHC definition birth certificate?

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).  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 now, has not been located.  To fend off possible CHC “birther” controversies, I will now set the record straight 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 represents 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, with the WJ IV manuals now serving 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 cross-battery assessment; Miller’s integrated school neuropsychology/CHC assessment model), confusion has crept into what represents the authoritative “official” and “unofficial” definitions and sources.  

In Schneider & McGrew (2012), 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).   It is time to divorce the official CHC definitions from the WJ series and authors (particularly myself, Kevin McGrew). 

However, the CHC birth certificate question is still present.  Did the CHC definitions magically appear?  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?  The original CHC definitions were presented in McGrew’s (1997) chapter where the individual tests from all major intelligence batteries where first classified as per the first integration of the Cattell-Horn and Carroll models of cognitive abilities (then called a “proposed synthesized Carrell and Horn-Cattell Gf-Gc framework”).  In order to complete this analysis, I needed standard CHC broad and narrow definitions—but none existed.

I developed the original broad and narrow definitions by abstracting definitions from Carroll’s (1993) book.  After drafting 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. Carrol and I engaged in a number of iterations until he was comfortable with the working definitions. As a result, the original definitions published in 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 CHC definitions have been primarily parented by McGrew (McGrew & Woodcock, 2001; McGrew, 2005; Schneider and McGrew, 2012; McGrew et al., 2014), and more recently, uncle Joel Schneider (Schneider & McGrew, 2012).  The other WJ III and WJ IV authors (Mather, Schrank, and Woodcock) have served as aunts and uncles at various points in the evolution of the definitions, resulting in the current “official” definitions in the WJ IV technical manual (McGrew et al., 2014).

No doubt the definitions that will appear in the Schneider and McGrew (2012) chapter that is currently under revision, will likely be considered the new “official” CHC definitions as they have a clear Carroll/McGrew and WJ III /WJ IV genetic lineage (McGrew, 1997—>McGrew & Woodcock, 2001—>McGrew, 2005—>Schneider & McGrew, 2012—>McGrew et al., 2014—>Schneider & McGrew, in press).  We (Schneider and McGrew) are reasonably comfortable with this fact.  However, we believe it is time the CHC definitions move out of the WJ/CHC house and establish a separate residence, identity, and process for future growth.  We will provides ideas on how this can be facilitated in our revised CHC chapter.

WMF Human Cognitive Abilities Project Update 4-20-10: 22 new Carroll data sets

The free on-line WMF Human Cognitive Abilities (HCA) archive project was updated today. An overview of the project, with a direct link to the archive, can be found at the Woodcock-Muñoz Foundation web page (click on "Current Woodcock-Muñoz Foundation Human Cognitive Abilities Archive") . Also, an on-line PPT copy of a poster presentation I made at the 2008 (Dec) ISIR conference re: this project can be found by clicking here.


Today's update added the following 22 new data sets from John "Jack" Carroll's original collection.

• **GUIL31, GUIL32A, GUIL41:     Guilford, J.P., Lacey, J.I. (Eds.) (1947).  Printed classification tests.  Army Air Force Aviation Psychology Program Research Reports, No. 5.  Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. [discussed or re-analyzed by Lohman (1979)]

• HEMP21:     Hemphill, J.K., Griffiths, E., Frederiksen, N., Stice, G., Iannaccone, L., Coffield, W., & Carlton, S. (1961). Dimensions of administrative performance. New York and Princeton: Teachers College, Columbia University, & Educational Testing Service.

• PICK01:     Pickens, J. D., Pollio, H. R. (1979). Patterns of figurative language competence in adult speakers. Psychological Research, 40, 299-313. 

• PORT01:     Porter, E. L. H. (1938). Factors in the fluctuation of fifteen ambiguous phenomena. Psychological Record, 2, 231-253. 

• **PRIC01:     Price, E. J. J. (1940). The nature of the practical factor (f). British Journal of Psychology, 30, 341-351. 

• RICH01, RICH02:     Richards, T. W., & Nelson, V. L. (1939). Abilities of infants during the first eighteen months. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 55, 299-318. 

• ** RIEB01, REIB02:     Rieben, l., & Mengal, P. (1977). Intelligence globale, creativite et operativite chez l'enfant: Analyse factorielle et analyse discriminante. [Global intelligence, creativity, and operativity in the child: Factorial and discriminant analysis.] Psychologie - Schweizerische Zeitschrift fur Psychologie und ihre Anwendungen, 36, 100-108. 

• RIMO11:     Rimoldi, H. J. A. (1948). Study of some factors related to intelligence. Psychometrika, 13, 27-46. 

• **ROBE11:     Robertson-Tchabo, e., & Arenberg, D. (1976). Age differences in cognition in healthy educated men: A factor analysis of experimental measures. Experimental Aging Research, 2, 75-89. 

• ROND01, ROND02:     Rondal, J. A. (1978). Patterns of correlations for various language measures in mother-child interactions for normal and Down's syndrome children. Language & Speech, 21, 242-252.  

• **ROSE01:     Rose, A. M. (1974). Human information processing: An assessment and research battery. Ann Arbor: Human Performance Center, Department of Psychology, University of Michigan. (Technical Report No. 46)

• **ROSE11:      Rose, A. M. & Fernandes, K. (1977). An information processing approach to performance assessment: I. Experimental investigation of an information processing performance battery. Washington: American Institutes for Research, Technical Report No. 1. 

• STAN01:     Stankov, L. (1978).  Fluid and crystalized intelligence and broad perceptual factors among 11 to 12 year olds.  Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 324-334.

• STAN21:     Stankov, L. (1983). Attention and intelligence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 471-490.

• STAN41:     Stankov, L., Horn, J. L., & Roy, T. (1980). On the relationship between Gf/Cg theory and Jensen's Level I/Level II theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 796-809. 

• STAN51:    Stanovich, K. E. (1981). Relationships between word decoding speed, general name-retrieval ability, and reading progress in first-grade children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 809-815. 

• STAN61:    Stanovich, K. E., Cunningham, A. E., & Freman, D. J. (1984). Intelligence, cognitive skills, and early reading progress. Reading Research Quarterly, 29, 278-303.

Request for assistance: The HCA project needs help tracking down copies of old journal articles, dissertations, etc. for a number of datasets being archived. We have yet to locate copies of the original manuscripts for the data sets listed above that are designated with **. Help in locating copies of these MIA manuscripts would be appreciated.

Also,  please visit the special "Requests for Assistance" section of this archive to view a more complete list of manuscripts that 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.

Please join the WMF HCA listserv to receive routine email updates regarding the WMF HCA project.

All posts regarding this project can be found here.

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

CHC intelligence theory and testing: Quotes to note from intelligence giants

Regular readers of this blog know that I  frequently reference the need for the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory of cognitive abilities to be used as the organizational framework for intelligence testing.  I typically provide links to two sources (one a pre-pub version of a book chapter that was eventually published; the other an invited 2009 editorial in the journal Intelligence). 

If readers take time to read these sources, they will learn that CHC theory is the combination of Cattell-Horn Gf-Gc theory and Carroll's three-stratum Gf-Gc theory [Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities:  A survey of factor analytic studies. New York: Cambridge University Press].  I cannot stress enough the importance of the development of CHC theory for evidence-based intelligence theories and test development and interpretation.

To add external credibility to my professional opinion, I suggest skeptical readers read the words of major intelligence scholars as they rendered judgment on the Carroll portion of the CHC model.  Below are a few select quotes.  The conclusion should be obvious. Top notch intelligence scholars recognize the seminal work of Carroll, which is a major cornerstone of CHC theory.  I'll let the words of these giants speak for themselves.

Richard Snow (1993; back cover jacket of Carroll's, 1993 book):

 “John Carroll has done a magnificent thing. He has reviewed and reanalyzed the world’s literature on individual differences in cognitive abilities…no one else could have done it… it defines the taxonomy of cognitive differential psychology for many years to come.”

Burns, R. B. (1994). Surveying the cognitive terrain. Educational Researcher, 35-37.

Carroll’s book “is simply the finest work of research and scholarship I have read and is destined to be the classic study and reference work on human abilities for decades to come” (p. 35).

Horn, J. (1998). A basis for research on age differences in cognitive abilities. In J.J. McArdle, & R.W. Woodcock (Eds.), Human Cognitive Abilities in Theory and Practice (pp. 57-92). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

A “tour de force summary and integration” that is the “definitive foundation for current theory” (p. 58).  Horn compared Carroll’s summary to “Mendelyev’s first presentation of a periodic table of elements in chemistry” (p. 58). 

Jensen, A. R. (2004). Obituary - John Bissell Carroll. Intelligence, 32(1), 1-5.

“…on my first reading this tome, in 1993, I was reminded of the conductor Hans von Bülow’s exclamation on first reading the full orchestral score of Wagner’s Die Meistersinger, ‘‘It’s impossible, but there it is!’’

“Carroll’s magnum opus thus distills and synthesizes the results of a century of factor analyses of mental tests. It is virtually the grand finale of the era of psychometric description and taxonomy of human cognitive abilities. It is unlikely that his monumental feat will ever be attempted again by anyone, or that it could be much improved on. It will long be the key reference point and a solid foundation for the explanatory era of differential psychology that we now see burgeoning in genetics and the brain sciences” (p. 5).

Technorati Tags: psychology, school psychology, educational psychology, forensic psychology, criminal psychology, cognition, clinical psychology, neuropsychology, mental retardation, MR, developmental disabilities, CHC theory, Cattell-Horn-Carroll, Gf-Gc, intelligence, IQ, IQ tests, IQ scores, capital punishment, death penalty, Arthur Jensen, Richard Snow, John Horn, Jack Carroll

Cattell-Horn-Cattell (CHC) Intelligence Theory Timeline Project

I've been busy taking information from my Cattell-Horn-Carroll CHC (Gf-Gc) Theory:  Past, Present & Future book chapter (in Flanagan & Harrison, 2005 CIA book) and putting it together in a piece of professional timeline software (Timeline Maker).  The software is "way cool" as it allows me to embed hyperlinks to files, images, web pages, etc.  Then, I can use the software, when making presentations, and bring events in one-at-a-time.  AND, at each event there are icons that serve as menus to files, images, etc. that I can "bring up" for viewing and discussion.  I've been embedding the timeline with all kinds of historical images, original classic articles (e.g., Spearman, Thurstone, Cattell, etc.) as well as more recent CHC-related articles.  The idea is for a timeline-based working and breathing educational tool....a timeline-based book chapter if you please.

At this point in time the software allows me to output a web page....but the icon-based hyperlinks don't work (darn).  There is a possible "work around" I'm exploring (which would require a person to download a huge zip file and use the free Timeline Maker Preview program), which would allow people to have all the material on their HD for viewing--but I'm not ready to make that available just yet.

So....for now....you can view the completed Evolution of CHC Intelligence Theory and Assessment web page (sorry..it only is viewable when using Internet Explorer.  I use Mozilla as my browsser and it won't view.....%%$$#$$##).  You will see the various icons that are not active.

Also, I've exported the timeline and put it together with the "notes" from each event...a combined web image/table document.  This is a PDF file that can be downloaded by clicking here.  I added a small number of the embedded images that are available from the working clickable version to the end of the document....just the basics.

Feedback would be appreciated.  The long-term goal is to find a way to make this accessible on-line to others (free) for education and training purposes.  My intent is to add new material and update it on a regular basis.

Stay tuned to this blog for updates...or, subscribe to the CHC listserv for upates re: the projet.

EnjoyTechnorati Tags: psychology, educational psychology, school psychology, neuropsychology, human cognitive abilities, intelligence, IQ tests, IQ, IQ scores, general intelligence, g, Thurstone, Spearman, Vernon, Cattell-Horn-Carroll, CHC theory, cognition, CHC Timeline, IQs Corner

John Horn's (1965) doctoral dissertation test of Cattell's Gf-Gc theory

John Horn's Gf-Gc dissertation available for viewing.

I'm working on a visual-graphic and text-based summary and extension of my previously published "CHC Theory: Past, Present and Future" book chapter...so it can be displayed on the web, and more importantly, can serve as a presentation for instructional/historical purposes. When done I will be giving this material away to those that are interested.

In the process I'm trying to embed hyperlinks to classic articles that will give readers the chance to view and read many of the seminal works that have led us to contemporary CHC theory and intellectual assessment.

Today I'm posting a real gem I found in the process of completing this project. A PDF copy of John Horn's original dissertation (1965). According to Carroll (1993), this was the first real empirical test of Cattell's Gf-Gc theory.

You are forewarned. The file is very large...17+MB. I suggest you don't try download or view from a land phone line or wifi.

Technorati Tags: psychology, school psychology, education, educational psychology, cognitive abilities, cognition, intelligence, IQ, IQ tests, IQ scores, John Horn, Raymond Cattell, CHC theory, Cattell-Horn-Carroll, IQs Corner, psychometrics, ISIR

WMF Human Cognitive Abilities Project critical update: Carroll's EFA final solutions now being posted

The WMF Human Cognitive Abilities (HCA) project is pleased to announce the addition, to the WMF HCA Archive, the final hierarchical factor matrix solutions (produced by Jack Carroll) for each exploratory factor analysis included in his seminal 1993 Human Cognitive Abilities book.

When Carroll's (1993) book was first published, individuals could purchase (from Cambridge University Press), a set of two 5.25 disks. Many researchers were very excited when they heard this news and many purchased the disks. Much of our initial excitement was dampened when the disks arrived--- as they did not include the original correlation matrix input files. However, they did contain the hierarchical factor matrix final solution Carroll produced for each dataset he had analyzed.

Since Feb 2008 these disks can no longer be purchased from the publisher. Thus, researchers are now unable to examine the final output solutions from Carroll's methods (described in detail in Chapter 3, p. 73 - 114).

Also, if you happened to purchase the disks, the output could only be printed on old dot-matrix type printers (and not all such printers). Each file, when viewed in a text editor, is filled with all kinds of strange printer codes and characteristics that result in the output, when printed on today's printers, being a mess. Fortunately, when the HCA project was first started, I (Kevin McGrew) had someone write a small computer utility that cleaned the files of the strange code--thus making it possible to print the solutions. At that time we printed all the solutions and assembled them in three ring binders. The printed output was not perfectly formatted, but it was readable.

The WMF HCA project is pleased to announce that we have scanned all these printed copies to PDF files. We are adding these PDF files to each dataset when they are posted to the WMF HCA archive. Unfortunately, some of the printed output files have been lost or were not originally printed. And, we can no longer find the software utility used to clean the files for printing on contemporary printers. Thus, we do not have all the Carroll EFA hierarchical matrix output solutions available at this time. We will attempt to have a similar file cleaning/printing utility developed to extract these final output files.

Why is this important?

In cases where we have archived the original correlation matrix, original publication, and Carroll's hierarchical output solution, it is now possible for independent researchers to conduct their own secondary analysis of the original matrix and compare it to Carroll's solution. More importantly, and following the recommendation of Carroll, these "final" EFA solutions can serve as input into contemporary CFA/SEM software to refine the solution. Many researchers were not aware that this was the procedure Jack Carroll was using near the end of his career. He was using his custom written EFA software (as explained in Chapter 3 of his book) to secure an initial factor structure for a dataset which he then used as the starting point for model generation, exploration and evaluation via CFA/SEM methods. An example of this can be seen in the last chapter Carroll published (click here to see a pre-pub version of this chapter)

We hope that the inclusion of the final Carroll hierarchical matrix output files will encourage researchers to revisit Carroll's analyses with an eye towards a fine-tuning of his work--something he encouraged in his 1993 book and subsequent writings. Individuals will need to read Chapter 3 in Carroll (1993) to understand and interpret the EFA hierarchical output files.

Finally, the availability of the EFA hierarchical matrix PDF output files is designated with a large red check mark on each datasets heading (or mindmap branch if you are viewing the archive in the visual-graphic map mode).

Technorati Tags: psychology, school psychology, educational psychology, cognition, intelligence, IQ, IQ tests, cognitive abilities, CHC theory, Cattell-Horn-Carroll, ISIR, WMF, HCA, Human Cognitive Abilities Project, IQs Corner