The History of the #CHC Theory of #Cognitive Abilities in #Indonesia

Click on images to enlarge

Approximately seven years ago I made a post regarding the launch of the AJT CHC-based intelligence test developed and normed in Indonesia. I was the primary CHC theory and applied psychometrics consultant for the project for four years (2014 to 2017).

Unfortunately the timing of the formal AJT launch was impacted by several unanticipated factors (e.g., the lack of a mature university-based psychological assessment and interpretation training infrastructure), the most salient being the world-wide COVID pandemic.  At that time the AJT folks put the project on “pause”. To date I’ve not heard if the project has since been restarted.

I decided to check on the impact of the CHC theory of cognitive abilities in Indonesia. It was my impression, based on multiple keynote university-based CHC/AJT presentations I made during the project plus feedback from the project staff, that despite the AJT pause, the project had a major impact regarding the infusion of the CHC theory in universities (psychology departments) and private testing entities. 

To satisfy my curiosity, I performed the following Google AI queries. Below is what I I found.  Professionally I feel very proud that the four-year AJT project resulted in the quick infusion of CHC theory in the academic and private sector discourse. All entities and staff who worked on the project should be proud of the CHC impact in Indonesia.

———————————

On 11-09-2025 I, Dr. Kevin McGrew, submitted the following prompt question, followed by a second follow-up question to a Google AI search (that uses the Gemini large language model) with the Firefox web browser (version 144.0.2, released on October 28, 2025).

 

“What is the history of the CHC theory of intelligence in Indonesia?

 

The history of the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory of intelligence in Indonesia is relatively recent, primarily involving efforts to develop and validate locally normed intelligence tests based on the CHC framework. The theory has been recognized as the "most comprehensive theory" for structuring cognitive abilities and has been used in academic research and test development. 

 

Key milestones in the history include:

• Early 2010s: The CHC theory started gaining attention in Indonesian academic and psychological circles, leading to research interest in applying the framework. The existing intelligence tests in Indonesia at the time were few and not necessarily based on contemporary, comprehensive models like CHC theory.
• 2013-2018: The AJT Cognitive Assessment Test (AJT-CAT) Project: The most significant development began around 2013, sponsored and directed by the Yayasan Dharma Bermakna Foundation (YDB).
• This project aimed to create the first comprehensive, individually administered intelligence test in Indonesia that was natively based on the CHC theory.
• Psychometric and CHC expert Dr. Kevin McGrew served as a consultant for this project.
• The test was nationally normed using a sample of over 4,000 Indonesian individuals aged 5-18.
• The formal launch of the AJT occurred in April 2018.
• Research and Further Test Development: Since the launch of the AJT, the CHC theory has continued to serve as a foundational framework for other, more specific test development efforts.
• Researchers have developed tests for specific abilities, such as a visual-spatial ability test for high school students and a lexical knowledge test, using the CHC theory as the underlying structural model.
• These studies emphasize the use of CHC theory to ensure tests are psychometrically sound and relevant for the Indonesian context, particularly for educational and clinical assessment purposes. 

The history of CHC theory in Indonesia is marked by a shift towards developing culturally relevant, psychometrically robust assessments grounded in contemporary, internationally recognized theories of intelligence, moving beyond older or imported models.

 

What psychologist is most associated with the CHC theory in Indonesia?

 

The psychologist most prominently associated with the application and development of the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory in Indonesia is the American psychometric expert Dr. Kevin McGrew.  Dr. McGrew served as the primary international consultant for the development of the AJT Cognitive Assessment Test (AJT-CAT), which was the first individually administered, CHC-theory-based intelligence test developed and nationally normed in Indonesia. This project was a major collaborative effort between 2013 and 2018 involving the Yayasan Dharma Bermakna Foundation (YDB) and the Faculty of Psychology at Universitas Gadjah Mada (UGM). 

 

While the CHC theory in Indonesia involves contributions from several Indonesian researchers and institutions, Dr. McGrew is the most widely recognized figure due to his direct supervision of this foundational project and his broader international reputation as a leading scholar and "gatekeeper" of the CHC theory. 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note.  Click on all images to enlarge for easy reading

Abstract

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

Modified CHC model for evaluating AI agents

Click on image to enlarge.

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

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

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

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

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

Exciting stuff !!

The impact of the CHC theory of intelligence: Impacting other disciplines and applied applications

In a prior post I documented the global impact of the CHC theory of intelligence.  Another indicator of the impact of the CHC model and taxonomy is how it has been recognized and used for important research functions in psychology, other disciplines, and applied settings. A number of diverse examples are summarized here.

The common CHC nomenclature assists different researchers better understand what they are measuring and facilitates better communication between and among professionals and scholars (McGrew, 1997). The CHC taxonomy has been used to organize meta-analyses that investigate the relations between cognitive ability constructs and other variables across a large number of studies. An excellent example is Loughmana, Bowdena, and D’Souzac’s (2014) use of the CHC taxonomy to classify a diverse set of cognitive tests used across 26 different studies of idiopathic generalized epilepsy. By classifying the dependent cognitive variables as per the CHC taxonomy, these researchers were able to use meta-analytic methods to present cognitive deficit effect sizes associated with idiopathic generalized epilepsy by the CHC domains of Gc, Gf, Glr, Gs, Gsm, Gv, as well as executive functions. The common CHC taxonomic coding system allowed for a diverse variety of cognitive measures to be synthesized in theoretically meaningful comparisons across the extant research literature.  Below is a sample Gf table from the meta-analysis (click on image to enlarge)

 

Two other examples come from health researchers studying the link between nutritional enhancements, cancer and cognitive functioning. Stough and Passe (Stough & Pase, 2015; Pase &Stough, 2014) have conducted and reviewed research on pharmacological methods for improving cognitive functioning with a particular focus on dietary and herbal supplements. Similar to research in many areas of psychology, they noted that:

• “It is often hard to compare and contrast the results of individual trials given the differences in the cognitive tests, sample demographics, and products used across studies…there is little consensus in the field about how to select, analyze, and report on cognitive outcomes. Cognitive composite scores are often created by combining tenuously related cognitive tasks without adequate justification. We recently suggested that the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) cognitive framework could be applied to help organize cognitive outcomes in clinical trials according to validated latent cognitive factors…the CHC model can help researchers measure and categorize the effects of a specific intervention against the full spectrum of human cognitive abilities. Although the utility of the CHC is in helping individuals categorize cognitive tests into broad and narrow abilities, one could also use the CHC to examine the effects of a pharmacological intervention on general intelligence (g)” (Sough and Pase, 2015, p. 180).

Researchers at the US National Cancer Institute have also conceptualized measures of cognitive functioning as per CHC theory in research focused on the impact of specific types of cancer on cognitive outcomes (e.g., “Looking At Cancer Related Cognitive Impairment Through The Lens Of CHC Theory: Does It Improve Our Vision?”  Padgett, 2015).

Psychologists working in military and defense settings have also recognized the value of the CHC taxonomy in military selection and classification research (Rumsey & Arabian, 2014). A National Research Council report on “Measuring human capabilities: An agenda for basic research on the assessment of individual andgroup performance for military accession” (National Research Council, 2015) referenced the CHC-related research of both John Horn and Jack Carroll. Research on the selection and training of Canadian military pilots has also used the CHC model to categorize cognitive and aptitude measures (Forgues, 2014; Herniman, 2013.  The US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has conducted research on the aptitude requirements needed for air traffic control specialists and utilized the CHC taxonomy in the analysis of the various aptitude measures (Broach, 2013).

Recognition of the CHC taxonomy has also played a role in stimulating new debates in the field of industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology.  A number of IO psychologists have argued for IO’s need to reconsider its relatively long-standing neglect of the construct of intelligence. As summarized by Murphy (2017):

 “for several decades, the question of whether measures of specific cognitive ability contributed anything meaningful to the prediction of performance on the job or performance in training once measures of general mental ability were taken into account appeared to be settled, and a consensus developed that there was little value in using specific ability measures in contexts where more general measures were available. It now appears that this consensus was premature, and that measures of specific abilities can make important contributions even if general measures are taken into account” (p. 4). 

In the target article of a special issue of Industrial and Organization Psychology (”Intelligence 2.0: Reestablishing a research program on g in I–O psychology”), Sherbaum, Goldsteing, Yusko, Ryan and Hanges (2012) challenged I-O researchers, in part because of the progress made in building validated psychometric (CHC) and other models of intelligence, to re-engage in the study of intelligence since contemporary general intelligence and specific cognitive abilities research has shown promise over the older “all there is is g” I-O consensus. Schneider and Newman (2015) echoed the same messages articulated by Murphy (2017) and Sherbaum et al. (2012) in the human resource management literature.

 The CHC model is now involved in life and death decisions. In Atkins v Virginia (2002), the United States Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional to execute individuals with intellectual disabilities. Since such Atkins cases typically rely on the definitions and guidelines of American Association of Intellectual and Development Disabilities (AAIDD, 2010) and the American Psychiatric Associations Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-5, 2013), IQ scores have become central to life or death Atkins decisions.

 Recognizing the variability in forensic intelligence testing practice and resulting diagnostic chaos, a number of forensic psychologists have argued for the use of the CHC taxonomy to better organize forensic research and to provide stronger validity for the interpretation of intelligence test results in Atkins cases and other criminal procedures (Habets, Jeandarme, Uzieblo, Oei & Bogaert; Uzieblo, Johan Vanderfaeillie, Gina Rossi &; Magez, 2012). Although the latest 2010 AAIDD manual focused primarily on IQ as a deficit in general intelligence, and did not recognize the CHC model, AAIDD has subsequently published a death penalty specific guidebook (Polloway, 2015) that, in the chapters on intellectual functioning (McGrew, 2015) and intelligence testing (Watson, 2015), places the CHC model front-and-center as the cognitive taxonomy for understanding intelligence test scores in Atkins cases. I believe this 2015 AAIDD publication sets the stage for AAIDD’s formal recognition of the importance of understanding multiple cognitive abilities (viz., CHC theory), and reducing the exclusive focus on the global IQ score in the next revision of the official AAIDD classification manual.


Other uses of the CHC taxonomy have been reported in such diverse contexts as the study of international Paralympic athletics, computer science education and the internet, and the search of extraterrestrial life. Biesen, Mactavish, Kerrremans and Vanlandewijck (2016) investigated the relation between nine CHC-classified cognitive measures and tactile proficiency in well-trained table tennis players with intellectual disabilities (members of the International Federation for Para-Athletes with Intellectual Disabilities; INAS). Tsianos, Germanakos, Belk, Lekkas, Samaras and Mourlas (2013) used the CHC taxonomy to organize the individual differences user profile layer, the adaptation mapping layer, and the web content layer in an Ontological Adaptation Mechanism (OAM) for designing personalized web environments. Also in the field of computer science, Roman-Gonzalez et al. (2016) used the CHC model to investigate the cognitive abilities (Gf, Gv, Gwm) measured by the Computational Thinking Test (CTT), a measurement of computer science knowledge in educational settings. Finally, CHC theories role in the search for ET does not reference any real practical application of the CHC taxonomy in astrobiology. It is mentioned here simply to indicate that the CHC theory received honorable mention (viz., citation of McGrew, 2009 CHC article in Intelligence) in the article “Astrobiology in Culture: The Search for Extraterrestrial Life as ‘Science’’’(Billings, 2012) when comparing the problem of defining extraterrestrial life with that of the problem of defining intelligence in psychology.

Finally, the CHC model of “intelligence” is informing another important “intelligence”—national security intelligence. The US Office of the National Director of Intelligence (ODNI) sponsors a number of research programs focused on increasing the critical problem solving and analytic thinking of US intelligence analysts. One is the Strengthening Human Adaptive Reasoning and Problem-Solving (SHARP) Program focused on the advancement of the science for optimizing human adaptive reasoning and problem-solving. “The goal of the program is to test and validate interventions that have the potential to significantly improve these capabilities, leading to improvements in performance for high-performing adults in information-rich environments.” The SHARP program has incorporated CHC organized research and models in the conceptualization, implementation, and evaluation of this important research program (Hartman, Sprenger, Weeks, Kyllonen, Bertling, McGrew & Sarah Kriz, 2017).[2]

---

[2] Kevin McGrew served as an external consultant to the SHARP project from 2012-2015.

CHC impact: The Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) taxonomy of cognitive abilities has gone global

[Note.  Original post on March 6, 2017 has now been updated (March 7, 2017) to include reference to research in Spain]

The CHC taxonomy is officially a globetrotter with a large bank of frequent flier miles.   An indicator of the increasing prominence and spread of the CHC taxonomy is reflected in the globalization of CHC assessment activities in countries beyond the United States.  Several examples, which are not exhaustive, are summarized below. 

The influence of CHC theory, primarily via university assessment training in the use of the CHC-based Batería III Woodcock-Munoz (BAT III; Muñoz-Sandoval, Woodcock, McGrew, Mather, N. (2005a, 2005b), is prominent in Spanish speaking countries south of the US border.  This includes training, research or clinical use of the BAT III in Cuba, Mexico, Chile, Costa Rica, Panama, and Guatemala.^[1]  Farther south, researchers in Brazil were early adopters of the CHC taxonomy as a guide for intelligence test development (Primi, 2003; Wechsler & de Cassia Nakano, 2016).  For example, Wechsler and colleagues (Wechsler & Schelini, 2006; Wechsler Nunes, Schelini, Pasian, Homsi, Moretti, & Anache, 2010; Wechsler, Vendramini, & Schelini, 2007) completed several studies in an attempt to adapt the CHC-based WJ III to Brazil.  More recently, Wechsler, Vendramini, Schelini, Lourenconi, de Souza and Bundim (2014) developed the Brazilian Adult Intelligence Battery (BAIB), which although only measuring Gf and Gc, is grounded in CHC theory.  Other Brazilian researchers have focused on the nature and measurement of Gf (Primi, Maria Ferrã, Almeida, 2010; Primi, 2014) with their research clearly couched in the context of the CHC model.  Even broader in scope, I (Kevin McGrew) together with Dr. Joel Schneider consulted with researchers from the Brazilian Ayrton Senna Institute (from 2016 to 2017) on the use of the CHC model as the key cognitive ability framework for developing measures of critical thinking and creativity as per the Organization for Economic Cooperationand Development (OECD, 2016) efforts to develop 21st century skills in students.

CHC influences are also present north of the US border in Canada.  The CHC-based WJ III has been used by practitioners in Canada based on a US-Canadian matched sampled comparison study (Ford, Swart, Negreiros, Lacroix & McGrew, 2010).  The WJ IV is also sold and used in Canada.  Additionally, a school-based group administered CHC test (Insight; Beal, 2011) measuring Gf, Gc, Gv, Ga, Gwm, Glr, Gs, CDS (Gt) is available in Canada.  CHC theory and testing has a prominent place in school psychology assessment courses in several major Canadian universities (e.g., University of British Columbia; University of Alberta).^[2]

One of first systematic global CHC test development outreach project was efforts, led by Richard Woodcock and the Woodcock-Munoz Foundation, to provide Eastern European countries with cost-effective briefer versions of the CHC-based Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Ability—Third Edition.   The WJ III-IE (international editions) projects started in the early 2000’s and continued until approximately 2015.  WJ III-IE norming efforts occurred in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Romania, and Slovakia.  Other European efforts include the development of the Austrian-developed computerized Intelligence Structure Battery (INSBAT; Arendasy, Hornket, Sommer, Wagner-Menghin, Gittler, Hausler, Bongnar, & Wenzl, 2012) that measures six broad CHC abilities (Gf, Gq, Gc, Gwm, Gv, Glr).  The spread of CHC theory has also reached France and Spain.  French researchers have analyzed French versions of the various Wechsler scales from the perspective of the CHC framework (e.g., see Golay, Reverte, Rossier J, Favez N and Lecerf, 2013; also, Lecerf, Rossier, Favez, Revert and Coleaux, 2010).  In Spain, researchers in computer science education have used the CHC taxonomy to analyze the components of the Computational Thinking Test (CTt; Roman-Gonzalez, Perez-Gonzalez, Jimenez-Fernandez, 2016). German intelligence research has also been influenced by the CHC model (e.g., see Baghaei & Tabatabaee, 2015) as best illustrated by its incorporation in the popular German-based Berlin Intelligence Structure (BIS) program of research literature (Beauducel, Brocke & Liepmann, 2001; SÜß & Beauducel, 2015; Vock, Preckel, Holling, 201X),  Additionally, the Wuerzburger Psychologische Kurz-Diagnostik (WUEP-KD), a neuropsychological battery used in German speaking countries, is grounded in the CHC model (Ottensmeier, Zimolong, Wolff, Ehrich, Galley, von Hoff , Kuehl and Rutkowski, 2015).

Additional emerging CHC outposts in northern Europe include the Netherlands and Belgium.  Hurksa and Bakker (2016) reviewed the influence of CHC theory, as well as the neuropsychological PASS theory, in an article providing a historical overview of intelligence testing efforts in the Netherlands.  A strong indicator of the growing interest in CHC theory was a CHC theory and assessment conference (New angles on intelligence! A closer look on the CHC–model) at Thomas More University, Antwerp Belgium, in February 2015.  Faculty at Thomas More University have developed a CHC assessment battery (CoVaT-CHC) for children in Flanders that measures the CHC domains of Gf, Gc, Gv, Gwm, and Gs. 

Transported via the Chunnel to the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, the CHC flame has been lit, but has not yet resulted in significant CHC test development.  In the 1990’s the WJ III author team was consulted to develop Irish norms for the WJ III.  One of the WJ III authors (Fred Schrank) visited and consulted at several universities in Ireland (University College Dublin, in particular) and continues to do so regarding the WJ IV (Fred Schrank, personal communication, March 2, 2017).  The CHC theory is now the dominant cognitive taxonomy taught in psychology departments (Trevor James, personal communication, March 3, 2017). 

Traveling to the Middle East, known CHC activities have been occurring in Jordan and Turkey.  Under the direction of Bashir Abu-Hamour (Abu-Hamour, 2014; Abu-Hamour, Hmouz, Mattar & Muhaidat, 2012;), the CHC-based WJ III has received considerable attention and the WJ IV was recently translated, adapted, and nationally normed in Jordan (Abu-Hamour & Al-Hmouz, 2017).  In Turkey, the first national intelligence test (Anatolu-Sak Intelligence Scale; ASIS) was developed between 2015-2017.  Although the ASIS composite scores are not couched in the CHC nomenclature, the theories listed as the foundation for the Turkish ASIS are general intelligence, CHC and PASS.  Additionally, I (Kevin McGrew) worked with two universities in 2016 in the preparation of government sponsored grant proposals for additional national intelligence test development in Turkey, both that proposed to use the CHC taxonomy. 

Pivoting toward Asia and the world “down under” reveals major CHC test development efforts.  Since the publication of the CHC-based WJ III several key universities and an Australian publisher have delved deep into CHC theory and assessment.  Psychological Assessments Australia (PAA) has translated, adapted, and normed the CHC-based WJ III and WJ IV in Australia and New Zealand.  The Melbourne area has been a particular flash point for CHC training and research.  Neuropsychologist and researcher Stephen Bowden and his students at the University of Melbourne have produced a series of multiple sample confirmatory factor analysis studies with markers of CHC abilities to investigate the constructs measured by neuropsychological tests measures.  The University of Monash, initially under the direction of John Roodenburg, and subsequently by his students, placed the CHC model at the core of their assessment course sequence and have influenced in the infusion of the CHC framework into the assessment practices of Australian psychologists (James, Jacobs, Roodenburg, 2015). 

Finally, one of the most ambitious CHC test development projects has been occurring in Indonesia since 2013.  Sponsored and directed by the Yayasan Dharma Bermakna Foundation (YDB), a nationally normed (over 4000 individuals) individually administered CHC-based battery of tests for school age children (ages 5-18) is, at the time of this writing, nearing completion.  The AJT Cognitive Assessment Test (AJT-CAT) will be one of the most comprehensive individually administered tests of cognitive abilities in the world.  The AJT-CAT currently consists of 27 individual cognitive tests designed to measure 21 different narrow CHC abilities (and two psychomotor tests to screen for motor difficulties) and preliminary confirmatory factor analysis indicated that the battery measure eight broad CHC cognitive domains (Gf, Gc, Gv, Gwm, Ga, Gs, Gl, Gr) and the Gp motor domain.^[3]

---

^[1] Thanks to Dr. Todd Fletcher for providing this information.

^[2] Thanks to Laurie Ford and Damien Cormier for this information.

^[3] Kevin McGrew has served as the CHC and applied psychometric expert consultant on this project and helped complete these preliminary structural analyses.