Beyond IQ: Mining the “no-mans-land” between Intelligence and IQ: Journal of Intelligence special issue

I am pleased to see the Journal of Intelligence addressing the integration of non-cognitive variables (personality; self-beliefs; motivational constructs; often called the “no-mans land” between intelligence and personality— I believe this catchy phrase was first used by Stankov) with intellectual constructs to better understanding human performance. I have had a long-standing interest in such comprehensive models as reflected by my articulation of the Model of Academic Competence and Motivation (MACM) and repeated posting of “beyond IQ” information at my blogs.

Joel Schneider and I briefly touched in this topic in our soon to be published CHC intelligence theory update chapter. Below is the select text and some awesome figures crafted by Joel.

Our simplified conceptual structure of knowledge abilities is presented in Figure 3.10. At the center of overlapping knowledge domains is general knowledge—knowledge and skills considered important for any member of the population to know (e.g., literacy, numeracy, self-care, budgeting, civics, etiquette, and much more). The bulk of each knowledge domain is the province of specialists, but some portion is considered important for all members of society to know. Drawing inspiration from F. L. Schmidt (2011, 2014), we posit that interests and experience drive acquisition of domain-specific knowledge.

In Schmidt's model, individual differences in general knowledge are driven largely by individual differences in fluid intelligence and general interest in learning, also known as typical intellectual engagement (Goff & Ackerman, 1992). In contrast, individual differences in domain-specific knowledge are more driven by domain-specific in-terests, and also by the “tilt” of one's specific abilities (Coyle, Purcell, Snyder, & Richmond, 2014; Pässler, Beinicke, & Hell, 2015). In Figure 3.11, we present a simplified hypothetical synthesis of several ability models in which abilities, interests, and personality traits predict general and specific knowledge (Ackerman, 1996a, 1996b, 2000; Ackerman, Bowen, Beier, & Kanfer, 2001; Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997; Ackerman & Rolfhus, 1999; Fry & Hale, 1996; Goff & Ackerman, 1992; Kail, 2007; Kane et al., 2004; Rolfhus & Ackerman, 1999; Schmidt, 2011, 2014; Schneider et al., 2016; Schneider & Newman, 2015; Woodcock, 1993; Ziegler, Danay, Heene, Asendorpf, & Bühner, 2012).

Click on images to enlarge.







- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

The Relation between Intelligence and Adaptive Behavior: A Meta-Analysis

Very important meta-analysis of AB IQ relation. Primary finding on target with prior informal synthesis by McGrew (2015)

The Relation between Intelligence and Adaptive Behavior: A Meta-Analysis   
 
Ryan M. Alexander 
 
ABSTRACT 
 
Intelligence tests and adaptive behavior scales measure vital aspects of the multidimensional nature of human functioning. Assessment of each is a required component in the diagnosis or identification of intellectual disability, and both are frequently used conjointly in the assessment and identification of other developmental disabilities. The present study investigated the population correlation between intelligence and adaptive behavior using psychometric meta-analysis. The main analysis included 148 samples with 16,468 participants overall. Following correction for sampling error, measurement error, and range departure, analysis resulted in an estimated population correlation of ρ = .51. Moderator analyses indicated that the relation between intelligence and adaptive behavior tended to decrease as IQ increased, was strongest for very young children, and varied by disability type, adaptive measure respondent, and IQ measure used. Additionally, curvilinear regression analysis of adaptive behavior composite scores onto full scale IQ scores from datasets used to report the correlation between the Wechsler Intelligence Scales for Children- Fifth edition and Vineland-II scores in the WISC-V manuals indicated a curvilinear relation—adaptive behavior scores had little relation with IQ scores below 50 (WISC-V scores do not go below 45), from which there was positive relation up until an IQ of approximately 100, at which point and beyond the relation flattened out. Practical implications of varying correlation magnitudes between intelligence and adaptive behavior are discussed (viz., how the size of the correlation affects eligibility rates for intellectual disability).
 
Other Key Findings Reported
 
McGrew (2012) augmented Harrison's data-set and conducted an informal analysis including a total of 60 correlations, describing the distributional characteristics observed in the literature regarding the relation. He concluded that a reasonable estimate of the correlation is approximately .50, but made no attempt to explore factors potentially influencing the strength of the relation.
 
Results from the present study corroborate the conclusions of Harrison (1987) and McGrew (2012) that the IQ/adaptive behavior relation is moderate, indicating distinct yet related constructs. The results showed indeed that the correlation is likely to be stronger at lower IQ levels—a trend that spans the entire ID range, not just the severe range. The estimated true mean population is .51, and study artifacts such as sampling error, measurement error, and range departure resulted in somewhat attenuated findings in individual studies (a difference of about .05 between observed and estimated true correlations overall).
 
 
The present study found the estimated true population mean correlation to be .51, meaning that adaptive behavior and intelligence share 26% common variance. In practical terms, this magnitude of relation suggests that an individual's IQ score and adaptive behavior composite score will not always be commensurate and will frequently diverge, and not by a trivial amount. Using the formula Ŷ = Ȳ + ρ (X - X ̅ ), where Ŷ is the predicted adaptive behavior composite score, Ȳ  is the mean adaptive behavior score in the population, ρ  is the correlation between adaptive behavior and intelligence, X is the observed IQ score for an individual, and X ̅ is the mean IQ score, and accounting for regression to the mean, the predicted adaptive behavior composite score corresponding to an IQ score of 70, given a correlation of .51, would be 85 —a score that is a full standard deviation above an adaptive behavior composite score of 70, the cut score recommended by some entities to meet ID eligibility requirements. With a correlation of .51, and accounting for regression to the mean, an IQ score of 41 would be needed in order to have a predicted adaptive behavior composite score of 70. Considering that approximately 85% of individuals with ID have reported IQ scores between 55 and 70±5 (Heflinger et al., 1987; Reschly, 1981), the eligibility implications, especially for those with less severe intellectual impairment, are alarming. In fact, derived from calculations by Lohman and Korb (2006), only 17% of individuals obtaining an IQ score of 70 or below would be expected to also obtain an adaptive behavior composite score of 70 or below when the correlation between the two is .50. 
 
 
The purpose of this study was to investigate the relation between IQ and adaptive behavior and variables moderating the relation using psychometric meta-analysis. The findings contributed in several ways to the current literature with regard to IQ and adaptive behavior. First, the estimated true mean population correlation between intelligence and adaptive behavior following correction for sampling error, measurement error, and range departure is moderate, indicating that intelligence and adaptive behavior are distinct, yet related, constructs. Second, IQ level has a moderating effect on the relation between IQ and adaptive behavior. The correlation is likely to be stronger at lower IQ levels, and weaker as IQ increases. Third, while not linear, age has an effect on the IQ/adaptive behavior relation. The population correlation is highest for very young children, and lowest for children between the ages of five and 12. Fourth, the magnitude of IQ/adaptive behavior correlations varies by disability type. The correlation is weakest for those without disability, and strongest for very young children with developmental delays. IQ/adaptive behavior correlations for those with ID are comparable to those with autism when not matched on IQ level. Fifth, the IQ/adaptive correlation when parents/caregivers serve as adaptive behavior respondents is comparable to when teachers act as respondents, but direct assessment of adaptive behavior results in a stronger correlation. Sixth, an individual's race does not significantly alter the correlation between IQ and adaptive behavior, but future research should evaluate the influence of race of the rater on adaptive behavior ratings. Seventh, the correlation between IQ and adaptive behavior varies depending on IQ measure used—the population correlation when Stanford-Binet scales are employed is significantly higher than when Wechsler scales are employed. And eighth, the correlation between IQ and adaptive behavior is not significantly different between adaptive behavior composite scores obtained from the Vineland, SIB, and ABAS families of adaptive behavior measures, which are among those that have been deemed appropriate for disability identification. Limitations of this study notwithstanding, it is the first to employ meta-analysis procedures and techniques to examine the correlation between intelligence and adaptive behavior and how moderators alter this relation. The results of this study provide information that can help guide practitioners, researchers, and policy makers with regard to the diagnosis or identification of intellectual and developmental disabilities.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

The importance of differential psychology for school learning: 90% of school achievement variance is due to student characteristics

This is why the study of individual differences/differential psychology is so important. If you don’t want to read the article you can watch a video of Dr. Detterman where he summarizes his thinking and this paper.

Education and Intelligence: Pity the Poor Teacher because Student Characteristics are more Significant than Teachers or Schools. Article link.

Douglas K. Detterman

Case Western Reserve University (USA)

Abstract

Education has not changed from the beginning of recorded history. The problem is that focus has been on schools and teachers and not students. Here is a simple thought experiment with two conditions: 1) 50 teachers are assigned by their teaching quality to randomly composed classes of 20 students, 2) 50 classes of 20 each are composed by selecting the most able students to fill each class in order and teachers are assigned randomly to classes. In condition 1, teaching ability of each teacher and in condition 2, mean ability level of students in each class is correlated with average gain over the course of instruction. Educational gain will be best predicted by student abilities (up to r = 0.95) and much less by teachers' skill (up to r = 0.32). I argue that seemingly immutable education will not change until we fully understand students and particularly human intelligence. Over the last 50 years in developed countries, evidence has accumulated that only about 10% of school achievement can be attributed to schools and teachers while the remaining 90% is due to characteristics associated with students. Teachers account for from 1% to 7% of total variance at every level of education. For students, intelligence accounts for much of the 90% of variance associated with learning gains. This evidence is reviewed


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Beyond Cognitive Abilities: An Integrative Model of Learning-Related Personal Competencies and Aptitude Trait Complexes

For centuries educational psychologists have highlighted the importance of "non-cognitive" variables in school learning.  Below readers will find a PPT presentation that presents a "big picture" overview of how cognitive abilities and non-cognitive factors can be integrated into an over-arching conceptual framework.  The presentation also illustrates how the big picture framework can be used to conceptualize a number of contemporary "buzz word" initiatives related to building 21st century educationally important skills (social-emotional learning, critical thinking, creativity, complex problem solving, etc.)

The two preliminary images can be enlarged by click on them.

Prior related "Beyond IQ" blog posts can be found here.

Beyond cognitive abilities: An integrative model of learning-related personal competencies and aptitude trait complexes from Kevin McGrew

Intelligence Testing in Proper Perspective: The Big Picture - a MindHub video-PPT show

I am pleased to announce the availability of my second video-PPT at IQ's Corner YouTube Channel.  The first video can be found here.  The current video is 20 minutes.  You can skip the first three minutes if you don't want background "front matter" material regarding me (the narrator), etc.

The new video-PPT  is called "Intelligence Testing in Proper Perspective:  The Big Picture"

This presentation places the power and value of intelligence testing into a big picture perspective which recognizes the strengths and limitations of intelligence testing.  The goal is to encourage users and consumers of intelligence tests to better understand what these measures can and cannot do, and, more importantly, recognize the other personal and environmental characteristics that influence an individual's learning and development.

Be gentle.  I am not a professional video producer and I do not have the time to edit out pauses, minor mistakes, etc.---- hey...this is FREE quality information. :)

Update 02-27-15.  Thanks to Rueben Lopez for making the suggestion that I reduce the 3 minutes of the introductory "front matter."  I have taken his advice (which I will incorporate into future videos) and have now posted the identical video with the very brief introduction.  It can be accessed here.

More on Greenspan's model of personal competence: Relationship between IQ and social, practical, and conceptual abilities

I am pleased to see that, after a relatively long draught in published research, someone is again investigating the relations between general intelligence, and the primary domains of adaptive behavior, in models (that when examined closely) that are investigating aspects of Greenspan's' model of personal competence. The title, abstract, and key figure from this new research follow. The article can be read here. Kudos to these researchers

Click on images to enlarge





My primary criticism of this study is that it completely ignores the primary foundation research in this area that occurred between 1990 and 2000, some of which are the primary research studies cited in the AAIDD manuals to support the domains of practical, conceptual and social competence (Greenspan's model). I have provided a list of that research, and results from the most prominent article from that group of researchers, below.












Yes, my name is all over these MIA studies (in the current featured article) so some could see my comments as academic sour grapes for being overlooked. But I see their omission as a lack of scholarly rigor by the researchers and the journal who published the current article. All of the MIA studies can be found at the MindHub--scroll down until you see the list of studies shown above. Then click away and download and read. It would have been nice if the new study results would have been integrated with the extant personal competence research literature.

In the final analysis I am pleased that someone is conducting much needed research on these constructs given the pivotal role they play in the definition and assessment of MR/ID.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Personal (hot vs cool) intelligence: Real? Can we measure?

Interesting article that purports to demonstrate the validity of the construct of "personal intelligence" and the ability to measure it. I find this intuitively attractive and interesting, but I am not yet convinced. The long search for measures of social intelligence constantly bumped up against the problem of discriminant validity. That is, when measures of SI are analyzed with cognitive (cool) measures of intelligence, SI measures were typically found to be highly correlated with verbal or general intelligence...and thus did not show evidence that SI measures were tapping anything beyond cognitive abilities.

In this article, which reports multiple studies, only one single test of vocabulary was included in one study. One measure of vocabulary in one of the studies is not sufficient. The proposed measure of PI needs to be administered together with a broad measure of diverse cognitive abilities in order to show that it measures something different from cognitive abilities.

Interesting.......hopeful.....but I need more and better discriminant validity evidence.

Click on image to enlarge



Posted using BlogPress from Kevin McGrew's iPad
www.themindhub.com

Research bytes: Various thoughts on definition of MR/ID

Posted via DraftCraft app

Research byte: Greenspan et al on ID/MR and a theory of common sense

Posted via DraftCraft app