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  My role was to review and integrate all available published and unpublished factor analysis research on all prior editions of the different SB legacy tests.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

Research bytes: Factor analysis of SB5 and a neuropsychological test battery

As per usual when I make a research byte/brief post, if anyone would like to read the original article, I can share via email---with the understanding that the article is provided in exchange for a brief guest post about it's contents. :) (contact me at iap@earthlink.net if interested). Also, if figure/images are included in the post, they can usually be made larger by clicking on the image.



Doweling, N. M., Hermann, B., LaRue, A., & Sager, M. A. (2010). Latent Structure and Factorial Invariance of a Neuropsychological Test Battery for the Study of Preclinical Alzheimer's Disease. Neuropsychology, 24(6), 742-756.

Abstract

Objective: To examine the latent structure of a test battery currently being used in a longitudinal study of asymptomatic middle-aged adults with a parental history of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and test the invariance of the factor solution across subgroups defined by selected demographic variables and known genetic risk factors for AD. Method: An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and a sequence of confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were conducted on 24 neuropsychological measures selected to provide a comprehensive estimate of cognitive abilities most likely to be affected in preclinical AD. Once the underlying latent model was defined and the structural validity established through model comparisons, a multigroup confirmatory factor analysis model was used to test for factorial invariance across groups. Results: The EFA solution revealed a factor structure consisting of five constructs: verbal ability, visuospatial ability, speed & executive function, working memory, and verbal learning & memory. The CFA models provided support for the hypothesized 5-factor structure. Results indicated factorial invariance of the model across all groups examined. Conclusions: Collectively, the results suggested a relatively strong psychometric basis for using the factor structure in clinical samples that match the characteristics of this cohort. This confirmed an invariant factor structure should prove useful in research aimed to detect the earliest cognitive signature of preclinical AD in similar middle aged cohorts.


Williams, T. H., McIntosh, D. E., Dixon, F., Newton, J. H., & Youman, E. (2010). A CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS OF THE STANFORD-BINET INTELLIGENCE SCALES, FIFTH EDITION, WITH A HIGH-ACHIEVING SAMPLE. Psychology in the Schools, 47(10), 1071-1083.

Abstract

The Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scale, Fifth Edition (SB5), is a recently published, multidimensional measure of intelligence based on Cattell–Horn–Carroll (CHC) theory. The author of the test provides results from confirmatory factor analyses in the technical manual supporting the five-factor structure of the instrument. Other authors have examined this factor structure through EFA using the standardization sample, and have not found evidence of a five-factor model. The purpose of the current study was to examine the internal construct validity of the SB5 using an independent sample of high-functioning students. Participants included 201 high-functioning, third-grade students ranging in age from 8 years, 4 months to 10 years, 11 months. Five models of the SB5 were analyzed using Analysis of Moment Structures (AMOS). Our findings indicated that a hierarchical, four-factor, post-hoc model provided the best fit to the data. Generally, implications for school psychologists include a better understanding of the factor structure of the SB5, especially as it relates to high-achieving children. Directions for future research are also discussed


- 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 factor analysis confirmatory factor analysis neuropsychological test battery Stanford-Binet V intelligence battery

IQ test battery publication timeline: Atkins MR/ID Flynn Effect cheat sheet

As I've become involved in consulting on Atkins MR/ID death penalty cases, a frequent topic raised is that of norm obsolescence (aka, the Flynn Effect). When talking with others I often have trouble spitting out the exact date of publication of the various revisions of tests, as I keep track of more than just the Wechsler batteries (which are the primary IQ tests in Atkins reports). I often wonder if others question my expertise...but most don't realize that there are more IQ batteries out there than just the Wechsler adult battery....and, in particular, a large number of child normed batteries and other batteries spanning childhood and adulthood. Thus, I decided to put together a cheat sheet for myself..one that I could print and have in my files. I put it together in the form of a simple IQ battery publication timeline. Below is an image of the figure. Double click on it to enlarge.

An important point to understand is that when serious discussions start focusing on the Flynn effect in trial's, most often the test publication date is NOT used in the calculation of how obsolete a set of test norms are. Instead, the best estimate of the year the test was normed/standardized is used, which is not included in this figure (you will need to locate this information). For example, the WAIS-R was published in 1981...but the manual states that the norming occurred from May 1976 to May 1980. Thus, in most Flynn effect discussions in court cases, the date of 1978 (middle of the norming period) is typically used. This makes recall of this information difficult for experts who track all the major individually administered IQ batteries.

Hope this helpful...if nothing else...you must admit that it is pretty :)  Click on image to view





- iPost using BlogPress from my Kevin McGrew's iPad

intelligence intelligence testing Atkins cases ICDP blog psychology school psychology neuropsychology Forensic psychology criminal psychology criminal justice death penalty capital punishment ABA IQ tests IQ scores adaptive behavior AAIDD mental retardation intellectual disability Flynn effect

IQ test selection could be life-or-death decision: WAIS v SB score differences in ID/MR sample

Interesting article "in press" in Intelligence that compares WAIS and Stanford Binet IQ scores (across different editions except the current SB5 and WAIS-IV) for adults with intellectual disability (ID/MR).  Although the mixing together of scores across different editions makes it impossible to make SB/WAIS-specific edition comparisons, the finding that the WAIS scores were, on the average (mean), almost 17 points higher may surprise many psychologists.  The authors discuss the real-life implications (i.e., Atkins ID death penalty decisions; eligibility for SS benefits, etc.) of different scores from different tests.  As outlined in a prior IAP AP101 special report, differences of this magnitude between different IQ tests should not be surprising. 

Silverman, W., Miezejeski, C., Ryan, R., Zigman, W., Krinsky-McHale & Urv, T. (in press).  tanford-Binet and WAIS IQ differences and their implications for adults with intellectual disability (aka mental retardation).  Intelligence.

Abstract

Stanford-Binet and Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) IQs were compared for a group of 74 adults with intellectual disability (ID). In every case, WAIS Full Scale IQ was higher than the Stanford-Binet Composite IQ, with a mean difference of 16.7 points. These differences did not appear to be due to the lower minimum possible score for the Stanford-Binet. Additional comparisons with other measures suggested that the WAIS might systematically underestimate severity of intellectual impairment. Implications of these findings are discussed regarding determination of disability status, estimating prevalence of ID, assessing dementia and aging-related cognitive declines, and diagnosis of ID in forensic cases involving a possible death penalty.

A concluding comment from the authors

Nevertheless, psychologists cannot meet their ethical obligations in these cases without knowing which test provides the most valid estimate of true intelligence. The present data for individuals with relatively higher IQs, though sparse, indicate that differences between the Stanford-Binet and WAIS IQ tests can no longer be summarily dismissed as merely reflecting the scales' different floors. When test results are informing judgments of literal life and death, any suspected uncertainty regarding the validity of outcomes must be addressed aggressively.

Article Outline

1. Method
2. Results
3. Discussion

• 3.1. Disability determinations
• 3.2. Prevalence of ID
• 3.3. Declines with aging
• 3.4. Death penalty cases
• 3.5. Conclusion

Acknowledgements
References

Technorati Tags: psychology, educational psychology, school psychology, forensic psychology, court decisions, criminal psychology, criminal defense, Atkins cases, MR, ID, mental retardation, intellectual disability, death penalty, capital punishment, IQ, IQ scores, ABA, American Bar Association, ISIR, psychology and law, WAIS, Wechsler batteries, Stanford Binet, SB