Research Alert: The development of a universal screening measure for young children: Assessing social and emotional competencies in early childhood.

A quick FYI email post.  Article is NOT open access.😕

 

The development of a universal screening measure for young children: Assessing social and emotional competencies in early childhood. 
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2027-67366-001

 

Wadington, M., Eklund, K., Kilgus, S. P., & von der Embse, N. P. (2026). The development of a universal screening measure for young children: Assessing social and emotional competencies in early childhood. School Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000747

---

Abstract

Research highlights the importance of the early identification of social, emotional, and behavioral concerns in young children; however, there are limitations regarding the usability and technical adequacy of available measures. The purpose of the present study was the initial development and validation of the Social, Academic, and Emotional Behavior Risk Screener–Early Childhood measure, a novel tool designed to assess social, emotional, and behavioral functioning for preschool-aged children. Current analyses examined internal structure, reliability, concurrent validity, and diagnostic accuracy. Data were collected from 299 children, ages 2–6, and 42 educators from six early childhood centers in the Midwest and Southeastern regions of the United States. Results of a series of factor analyses provided support for a four-factor model and yielded adequate estimates of the internal consistency reliability of each factor. Correlational and receiver operating characteristic curve findings yielded strong support for the concurrent validity and diagnostic accuracy of the Social, Academic, and Emotional Behavior Risk Screener–Early Childhood Total Behavior, Social Behavior, Early Learning Behavior, and Challenging Behavior scales relative to Devereux Early Childhood Assessment for Preschoolers–Second Edition scales. Less support was found for the Anxious Behavior scale. Limitations, implications for practice, and future directions are also discussed. 

AI Brief: The trilogy-of-the-mind individual difference construct (cognitive, conative, affective) “band is getting back together” as CAMML

I am currently working to expand my skill set by incorporating AI tools. Although adapting to new technologies can be challenging, leveraging these resources offers significant benefits for professional growth.

This AI Brief was produced by requesting Google NotebookLM—recommended by Dr. Adam Lockwood—to generate a narrative summary of my 2022 PDF article describing the Cognitive-Affective-Motivation-Model of Learning (CAMML). While I found the first results promising, I made more edits to enhance its accuracy and informativeness. My next goal is to use AI to summarize multiple articles, find similarities and differences, and potentially create comparative tables (again following guidance graciously provided by Dr. Lockwood).

These incremental steps mark my transition toward utilizing AI to support one of my primary professional interests: producing informative blog and social media posts aimed at professionals such as school psychologists and special education teachers working with students who often are marginalized in educational contexts. The goal is to help bridge the gap between theory, technology, research, and practical application.

 

Feedback is encouraged and may be directed to iqmcgrew@gmail.com or via the social media platform (LinkedIn, Twitter/X, BlueSky) comment feature where this blog post was discovered. I’m hoping to add AI Briefs as a regular feature of IQs Corner Blog and associated social media platforms.

 

 

AI Brief: The trilogy-of-the-mind individual difference construct (cognitive, conative, affective) “band is getting back together” as CAMML

 

Dr. Kevin McGrew with assist from Google NotebookLM

 

The Cognitive-Affective-Motivation Model of Learning (CAMML; McGrew, 2002)[1] is a proposed theoretical framework designed to integrate contemporary motivational, affective, and cognitive constructs into a unified model for the practice of school psychology. The central thesis of the framework is that school psychologists must move beyond a narrow focus on intelligence (general intelligence or psychometric g in particular) to embrace an updated "trilogy-of-the-mind" model, which views intellectual functioning as the inseparable interaction of cognition, conation (motivation/volition), and affect.

Theoretical Foundations and the Rebirth of Conation

 

The CAMML framework is heavily rooted in the seminal work of Richard Snow, specifically his research on aptitude trait complexes. McGrew argues that the field of school psychology has historically neglected Snow’s broader definition of aptitude—which includes personality and motivational differences alongside cognitive abilities—and instead, has favored a restricted view of aptitude as synonymous with IQ or psychometric g.

 

CAMML seeks to resurrect conation (the proactive part of motivation connecting cognition and affect to behavior) as a core pillar of intellectual functioning. By "standing on the shoulders of giants" like Snow, Spearman, and Wechsler, the model asserts that cognitive processes cannot be understood in isolation from the "nonintellectual" (conative) factors that drive and direct them. For example, David Wechsler defined intelligence as "the aggregate or global capacity of the individual to act purposefully, to think rationally, and to deal effectively with his environment." While this is the core of Wechsler’s definition, he also strongly emphasized this capacity is influenced by non-intellective (conative) variables such as drive, persistence, interest, emotional states, and personality traits.

 

Structural Components of the CAMML Framework

 

The model organizes individual differences characteristics into three functional categories, which could be called the 3-D model.

 

●      Affective “Dispositions”: These are distal-to-learning traits, primarily represented by the Big 5 personality traits (specifically Openness and Conscientiousness) and their associated social-emotional facets (e.g, curiosity, creativity, persistence, focus, determination). These personality traits act as dispositions that indirectly influence learning through more proximal mechanisms.

 

●      Motivational "Drivers": Motivation is conceptualized as the initiation of behavior, formed by achievement orientations (e.g., goals, interests) and self-beliefs (e.g., self-efficacy, self-concept). These constructs are typically domain-specific (e.g., math) and work in synergistic "complexes" to energize a student's readiness to act.[2]

 

●      Volitional "Directors": Volition, or self-regulated learning (SRL), represents the post-decisional phase of action. These are the mechanisms that direct, control, and regulate behavior toward goals once a commitment to learn has been made.

 

A more detailed list of the 3-D CAMML domain constructs and definitions is available here. See figure below for a visual representation of the major affective and conative MACM constructs (click on image to enlarge for easy viewing and reading).

 

The "Crossing the Rubicon" Investment Model

 

The functional heart of CAMML is the "Crossing the Rubicon" model, which illustrates the pathway from initial desire to engaged motivated learning. In this model:

 

1. Pre-decisional Phase: Achievement orientations and self-beliefs drive or prepare the learner to start a wish—>want—> intention sequence, that eventually eventuates in motivated action.

2. Commitment: When the learner "crosses the Rubicon," they are making a firm commitment to motivated action through cognitive engagement.

3. Action Phase: Volitional (SRL) strategies steer the cyclical process via action results feedback while the learner invests cognitive abilities (such as those defined by CHC theory) to acquire knowledge.

4. Outcomes: This personal investment of fluid cognitive processes (Cattell's general gf that subsumes broad Gf, Gv, Ga, Gwm, Gl, Gr, and Gs abilities) during learning results in the development of crystallized knowledge systems (Cattell’s general gc that subsumes broad Gc, Grw, Gq, and Gkn abilities).

 

See figure below for visual representation of “the CAMML crossing the Rubicon model of motivated learning” (click on image to enlarge for easy viewing and reading).

 

Implications for School Psychology Practice

 

CAMML advocates for a paradigm shift in assessment and intervention. It suggests that school psychologists should transition from routine, comprehensive cognitive testing toward more time-efficient selective, referral-focused cognitive assessments combined with the assessment of key conative (non-cognitive) characteristics that contribute to learning aptitude complexes. This approach prioritizes identifying manipulable instructional levers, such as a student's motivational orientation (e.g., intrinsic motivation, interests, goal orientation), self-beliefs (e.g., locus of control, self-efficacy, growth or competence mindset), rather than relying exclusively on cognitive ability scores (especially full-scale IQ or g) that have proven hard to modify.

 

The framework provides a "whole-child" perspective to better address the nuances of individual differences, particularly as students move from the traditional “industrial” model of education (i.e., regularly scheduled, structured, in-class teacher-directed learning) to more of an “information-age” paradigm of education—a paradigm that requires a fuller expression of independent motivated self-regulated learning (SRL).

PS - other CAMML related posts on this blog can be found by clicking here.

[1] All relevant references can be found in McGrew (2022).

[2] The motivation constructs included in the CAMML framework are drawn from earlier efforts to develop the McGrew Model of Achievement Competence Motivation (MACM). A detailed explanation of the evolution and development of the MACM model is available elsewhere (McGrew et al., 2004). A series of recent MACM PowerPoint® modules is available here.

The McGrew (2022) Cognitive-Affective-Motivation Model of Learning (CAMML) article update - “something is happening here, what it is ain’t exactly clear” - #cognitive #intelligence #affective #motivation #intelligence #CHC #CAMMl #schoolpsychology #schoolpsychologists

In 2022 I published an invited big-picture “thought piece” on a proposed CAMML (cognitive-affective-motivation model of learning) in the Canadian Journal of School Psychology   The title wasThe Cognitive-Affective-Motivation Model of Learning (CAMML): Standing on the Shoulders of Giants.

I had hoped that by challenging existing narrow assessment practices in school psychology (SP), and proposing a more whole-child assessment model approach (where cognitive testing would be more limited and selective…not the knee jerk practice of most all referred kids for learning problems being administered a complete intelligence test battery), it would gain traction in some SP circles. From the informal and formal professional media sources I monitor, it has not..at least not yet.

The article was deliberately provocative and challenged the field of SP (especially trainers and leaders) to consider new assessment ideas and paradigms.  I fully recognized that the inertia of tradition and the constraints imposed by vested interest groups makes drastic paradigm changes in education difficult.  But as an invited tought piece one has more degree’s of freedom 😉. 

Recognizing how difficult it is to change established assessment practices, and recognizing the “ivory tower” orientation of the article, I stated: 

Integrating CAMML aptitude-trait complexes, which emphasize that motivation and SRL constructs are the focal personal investment learning mechanisms, in contemporary SP practice is an aspirational goal. The constraints of regulatory frameworks and the understandable skepticism of disability-specific advocacy groups will make such a paradigm-shift difficult. However, embracing the model of CAMML aptitude complexes may be what SP and education need to better address the complex nuances of individual differences in student learning. Snow's concept of aptitude, if embraced in reborn form as the CAMML framework, could reduce the unbalanced emphasis on intelligence testing in SPs assessment practices. However, the greatest impediment to change may be the inertia of tradition in SP”

Several weeks ago I completed a Google Scholar search to ascertain how frequently this article had been cited.  I was curious as I had seen no references to the article in traditional SP or assessment-related sources.  It is clear that the CAMML model (or any parts of it) have not yet resonated in SP or closely related education fields.  Perhaps it never will. Or………

To my surprise the search revealed 28 citations, most (but not all) outside of SP or related assessment publication outlets (except for another article I authored in 2023 and, of course, the motivation special issue introduction to that specific journal volume).  Here is a link to the results of this search.  The graph below shows a slow but increasing annual rate of reference citations.  Hmmmm….

Click on images to enlarge

Most references provide links to PDF articles if you want to skim the wide variety of non-SP contexts where the CAMML article has been cited.  It is a very interesting mix of professional topics and outlets. In my 45+ years of scholarship, I’ve never had a journal publication recognized almost exclusively outside of the intended professional audience.  Perhaps this is good…perhaps not.  I find it fascinating. Perhaps the diversity of professional outlet citations might foreshadow more wide-ranging (yet more gradual) future impact.  Below is the abstract and keywords from the article.  The CAMML article can be downloaded from my professional web page here. Below are colorized versions of the two figures from the article.

Abstract: The Cognitive-Affective-Motivation Model of Learning (CAMML) is a proposed framework for integrating contemporary motivation, affective (Big 5 personality) and cognitive (CHC theory) constructs in the practice of school psychologists (SPs). The central tenet of this article is that SPs need to integrate motivation alongside affective and cognitive constructs vis-à-vis an updated trilogy-of-the-mind (cognitive, conative, affective) model of intellectual functioning. CAMML builds on Richard Snow's seminal research on academic aptitudes—which are not synonymous with cognitive abilities. Learning aptitude complexes are academic domain-specific cognitive abilities and personal investment mechanisms (motivation and self-regulation) that collectively produce a student's readiness to learn in a specific domain. CAMML incorporates the “crossing the Rubicon” commitment pathway model of motivated self-regulated learning. It is recommended SPs take a fresh look at motivation theory, constructs, and research, embedded in the CAMML aptitude framework, by going back-to-the-future guided by the wisdom of giants from the field of cognition, intelligence, and educational psychology.

Keywords:  motivation, self-regulated learning, aptitudes, domain-specific, aptitude complexes, crossing the Rubicon, taxonomies, individual differences, readiness, CHC theory, Big 5, Gf-Gc theory

Click on images to enlarge

Research alert: Intriguing new “adaptive habits” executive function framework differentiating EF capacity and willingness to engage EF - #cognitive #intelligence #schoolpsychologists #schoolpsychology

Click on images to enlarge

 

This thought-provoking article, which proposes and explains the “adaptive habits” executive functioning framework, is an open access article (free download and read) 

 

Abstract

Executive functions (EFs) develop dramatically across childhood and predict important outcomes, including academic achievement. These links are often attributed to individual differences in EF capacities. However, individual difference accounts underemphasize contextual influences on EF. We propose a complementary perspective, the adaptive habits framework, which emphasizes how contextual factors support or hinder EF engagement in children. Contexts that support repeated EF engagement establish habits for engaging EF in similar contexts and in similar ways. Such habits, in turn, reduce the effort associated with engaging EF and thus increase the likelihood of deciding to en-gage EF in the future. We interpret empirical findings through the lens of adaptive habits, discuss the implications of this framework, and propose novel research approaches and interventions to support EF in children.

From Conclusion

Why do children (such as the two in our opening example) differ in their academic and EF task performance? The reviewed evidence demonstrates that such differences should be viewed as a product of distinct learning histories, sociocultural influences, and environmental contexts in-stead of solely as differences in EF capacities. The adaptive habits framework emphasizes how contextual factors influence children's decisions to engage EF and how such engagement (or its absence) supports the development of habits that make it easier (or harder) to engage EF in similar contexts or for similar rewards in the future. Thus, two children may have the same EF capacities; however, one child may perform better on standard measures of EF because these measures better align with how the child has practiced engaging EF in the real world and how their behaviors have been rewarded and reinforced, which in turn reduces the mental effort needed for engaging EF. The adaptive habits framework thus identifies these contextual factors as promising targets for future research on EF as well as for interventions to support the EF and academic achievement of children.

Research byte: Variability in #math (#Gq) achievement growth among students with early math learning difficulties and the role of school supports.—attention #schoolpsychology #SPED

Yet another new math achievement related research report.  I’ve detected a trend towards more high quality published research re the predictors of math achievement and longitudinal growth…which is reflected in more frequent math-related “research bytes” here at IQs corner.

Variability in math achievement growth among students with early math learning difficulties and the role of school supports.

Gesuelli, K.-A., Miller-Cotto, D., & Barbieri, C. A. (2025). Variability in math achievement growth among students with early math learning difficulties and the role of school supports. Journal of Educational Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000928

Click on image to enlarge for reading.

The how old are you #schoolpsychologist object recognition test

Click on image to enlarge for better viewing

If you recognize these objects (especially the metal train engine [1], dogs, thimbles, and black shoes), you are likely one of the older school psychologists around and are very likely retired :)

#AI resource for #educators and #psychologists: Lockwood Educational and Psychological Consutling

I just connected (via LinkedIn) with Lockwood Educational and Psychological Consulting.  The group describes itself below.  Given the considerable interest in AI in education and psychology, I would suggest checking out their web page. I’ve not yet conducted a deep dive into the website, but it appears to be a solid AI-related resource.  I plan to take a closer look.

Is your district, organization, or practice considering implementing AI but concerned about the ethical and practical implications? You've come to the right place. With expertise in both AI, education, and psychology, I provide guidance to navigate these complex waters, ensuring ethical, effective, and confidence-inspiring AI integration in educational, and psychological practice settings.

 

On the conflation of #psychometric and theoretical #g (general #intelligence): Is g the Loch Ness Monster of psychology?

Click on slide images to enlarge for better viewing. Parts of a recent presenation in 2023.  When I mention SP, I am referring to school psychology.

 

WJ IV ASB 8 available: The WJ IV Core-Selective Evaluation Process Applied to the Identification of a Specific Learning Disability

Click on image to enlarge


WJ IV ASB # 8 (The WJ IV™ Core-Selective Evaluation Process Applied to Identification of a Specific Learning Disability) is now available (click here to download)

Fredrick A. Schrank, PhD, ABPP

T ammy L. Stephens-Pisecco, PhD

Edward K. Schultz, PhD

Abstract
Each of the WJ IV batteries contains a “core” set of tests that provides a representative survey of abilities measured by the battery. Examiners can selectively administer additional tests to provide greater breadth of measurement in an area of cognition or linguistic competency or in a domain of achievement. This Assessment Service Bulletin describes how to use the WJ IV in a core-selective evaluation process (C-SEP) for identification of a specific learning disability (SLD). The basic premise of the C-SEP model for SLD identification is that test selection and data analysis are proportional to problem complexity—based on the presenting problem or referral question and the evaluator's professional judgment in determining what tests to administer . Information provided in this bulletin can be used to support professional judgment in determining what tests, beyond the core tests, to administer in an evaluation. Test-to-cluster correlation tables support the validity of the C-SEP as a data-based model for diagnostic decision making.

I did contribute the appendix which reports correlations from the WJ IV norm sample between all the Cognitive and Oral Language tests and the WJ IV achievement clusters at different age groups. We ran out of time to get this information in the technical manual. It should help with the design of selective referral-focused assessments, as described in the ASB.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

An awesome resource on Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS), by Gary Schaeffer, availalbe via NYASP.

Click on image to enlarge.

While presenting and attending the annual NYASP conference last week, I had the pleasure to meet Gary Schaeffer, who has developed an AWESOME e-pub resource on Mult-Tiered Systems of Support for school psychologists.  Gary shared his e-publication with me and I was blown away.  It is more than a book.  It is a innovative portal to a massive set of resources via hyperlinks to on-line resources, embedded videos, and excellent visual-graphic figures.  The real beauty of the resource is that it is a e-pub that will allow practitioners to have the resource immediately available on a tablet device.  This awesome resource will be available soon via the NYASP web page.

Cognitive assessment practices of school psychologists

Click on image to enlarge

 

 

Memory Interventionist Certification Program; Psychological Processing Analyzer 2.0; Review of CPPS

On behalf of my friend and colleague, Dr. Milton Dehn, I am sharing some announcements from Schoolhouse Educational Services..

First is a Memory Interventionist Certification Program for psychologists and school psychologists.  This is a 36-hour, competency-based program to train psychologists on evidence-based methods to improve memory, learning, and daily functioning for individuals with memory programs.

Second, version 2.0 of the Psychological Processing Analyzer will be released in a few weeks.  This software is designed to identify the pattern of strengths and weaknesses among psychological processes.

I have no financial interests in either of these two activities/products.  However, I was the measurement consultant for Dr. Dehn's Children's Psychological Processing Scale (CPPS) and do have a small financial royalty interest in the sales of that instrument.  The CPPS was just independently review in the Journal of Psychological Assessment (click here).

U of M rocks in school psychology

Click on images to enlarge








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