In the early 1800s, Lewis and Clark set out to map the western United States. Charting the network of rivers that wound their way across the land. Like those 19th century…
We investigated the role of test-taking speed on the Flynn Effect (FE). Our study compared two cohorts of Estonian students (1933/36, n = 888; 2006, n = 912) using 9 subtests from the Estonian adaptation of the National Intelligence Tests (NIT). The speededness of the items and the subtests was found by determining the proportion of unreached items from among the total number of errors (Stafford, 1971). The test-taking speed of the younger cohort was higher in all 9 of the subtests. This suggests that the younger cohort is able to solve more items than the older one. The lack of measurement invariance at the item and subtest level was quantitatively estimated using a method proposed by Dimitrov (2017). The test-taking speed and the non-invariance of the items was strongly, yet inversely correlated (up to - 0.89). The subtests versions that consisted of only invariant items showed no, or a small positive, FE. The subtest versions consisting of only speeded items showed a large positive FE, with cohort differences of up to 50%. If the requirement of measurement invariance is ignored then this effect becomes apparent. The rise in test-taking speed between cohorts can be attributed to an increase in automated responses, which is an outgrowth of modern education (differences in the mandatory age of school attendance, and in the student's readiness to solve abstract items also affected the test-taking speed of the cohorts). We were able to conclude that the younger cohort is faster than the older one.
Interesting conceptual framework for understanding performance on Gf tasks. However, it is Important to note that factor analysis studies have suggested a number of subprocesses that do not necessarily fit in this task-analysis based model.
Signatures of multiple processes contributing to fluid reasoning performance (article link)
We aimed to achieve a better understanding of the cognitive processes of fluid reasoning (or fluid intelligence; Gf), the ability to reason in novel conditions. While fluid reasoning has often been considered a unitary con-struct, multiple cognitive processes are expected to affect fluid reasoning performance. Yet, the contribution of various cognitive processes in fluid reasoning performance remains under-explored. We hypothesized that in-dividual differences in fluid intelligence can be viewed as a composite of individual differences in performance in various processes of Gf. Change detection, rule verification, and rule generation were the three processes-of-interest that were additively recruited in a novel visuospatial reasoning task. We observed decreases in accuracy and increases in response time as the processing requirements increased across task conditions. Hierarchical multiple linear regression analyses showed that individual differences in the likelihood of success and speed of each of these processes, accounted for different aspects of individual differences in accuracy and response time in fluid reasoning performance, as measured by Raven's Progressive Matrices. Change detection was a significant contributor to performance in problems with higher visuospatial demand, however, rule verification and rule generation consistently contributed to performance for all problem types. Our findings support the position that individual differences in fluid intelligence emerge as a composite of performance on separable cognitive op-erations, with rule processing being important for differentiating performance on high difficulty problem.
Children born very preterm (<32 weeks gestational age) are known to be at increased risk of neurocognitive impairments, in domains including executive functioning, processing speed, and fluid and crystallised intelligence. Given the close association between these constructs, the current study investigated a specific model, namely whether executive functioning and/or processing speed mediates the relationship between preterm birth and intelligence. Participants were 204 children born very preterm and 98 full-term children, who completed a battery of tasks measuring executive functioning, processing speed, and fluid and crystallised intelligence. Independent-samples t-tests found significantly poorer performance by children born preterm on all measures, and a confirmatory factor analysis found preterm birth to be significantly related to each of the cognitive domains. A latent-variable mediation model found that executive functioning fully mediated the associations between preterm birth and both fluid and crystallised intelligence. Processing speed fully mediated the preterm birth-fluid intelligence association, but only partially mediated the preterm birth-crystallised intelligence association. Future research should consider a longitudinal study design to test whether these deficits and mediating effects remain throughout childhood and adolescence.
******************************************************
Kevin McGrew, PhD
Educational Psychologist
Director, Institute for Applied Psychometrics
IAP
www.themindhub.com ******************************************************
Yesterday’s AJT CHC cognitive test launch yesterday in Jakarta was a big success. I was taken aback by the special “event” flavor. Extremely professional. As I’ve stated before, the AJT is based on an Indonesia norm sample of 4,800 and will be one if the most comprehensive intelligence tests in the world (on par with the WJ IV COG). It measures 9 broad CHC domains (Gf, Gc, Gwm, Ga, Gv, Gs, Gl, Gr, and some of Gp-separate from cognitive). This has been the most personally rewarding and important project I have worked on in my 40+ years in psychology and education. It is bringing the core concept of individual differences to the education system of the fourth largest country in the world.
George and Laurel Tahija (see picture below), and their YDB foundation, are the visionaries behind this project and other projects focused on helping unique learners in their country. In my five years on this project I can say that I’ve never worked with so many nice people. It was a grand effort by many. I am very impressed how together we built such a comprehensive and technically sound battery of tests from scratch. I have developed a fondness for Indonesia and the people of this wonderful country. The genuine warmth and enthusiasm of the participants was personally moving.
For more information check out these two links (one; two)
Conflict of interest disclosure. I have been a paid consultant for this project but do not receive any royalties from sales of the test.
One of the most comprehensive intelligence tests in the world (on par with WJ IV). When I have time I will post more. The most important project I have worked on in my 40+ years in psychology and education.
After five years the time has come to launch the CHC-based AJT intelligence test. It will be one of the most comprehensive intelligence tests in the world with an Indonesia norm sample of 4800 children and youth. The proudest project I have ever worked on in my 40 plus years in psychology and education.
Spatial cognition and science achievement: The contribution of intrinsic and extrinsic spatial skills from 7 to 11 years - Hodgkiss - - British Journal of Educational Psychology
******************************************************
Kevin McGrew, PhD
Educational Psychologist
Director, Institute for Applied Psychometrics
IAP
www.themindhub.com ******************************************************
A new view of social‐cognitive neurodevelopment is emerging from imaging studies of joint attention. Theory and these studies suggest that the cortical…
(San Francisco, CA) – Posit Science, the maker of BrainHQ online brain exercises and assessments, has bee issued two patents by the US Patent & Trademark Office on brain training that targets what scientists call "social cognition" and "emotional cognition," or what lay people may think of as "people skills."
The patents cover a variety of exercises focused on elemental people skills, such as: recognizing faces; recognizing expressions of emotion; following eye movements; recognizing voice inflections; pairing faces with names and other information; inferring thoughts and feelings; and self-regulating responses.
The social and emotional cognition exercises covered by the patents were originally designed as part of research into treating populations with conditions in which deficits in social and emotional cognition are common, such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.
A number of research studies of patients with schizophrenia, who have trained with exercises covered by the new patents, have shown gains in standard neuropsychological measures of social cognition. In addition, imaging studies have shown structural changes in the brain itself, including increased activity in areas associated with improved social cognition.
"While we set out to build tools to help populations where social and emotional cognition challenges are signature deficits, we soon realized that all of us could benefit by improving people skills — such as, quickly and accurately recognizing the emotions behind facial expressions," said Dr. Henry Mahncke, CEO of Posit Science. "Also, who among us has not been caught flat-footed, unable to associate a name — or other facts we at one time knew — with a face? A number of exercises in BrainHQ make use of the inventions covered by these patents."
Researchers also have been field testing the use of the exercises in high-stakes situations — where it's important to make fast and accurate assessments of facial expressions and motivations, or where there is benefit from quickly associating faces with names and other information. For example, field tests have been conducted with police cadets, experienced police officers, and SWAT teams.
"Of course, if you are in sales or customer service — or you are just dealing with bosses, co-workers, and subordinates in any workplace — improving the speed and accuracy of these skills should also be important," Dr. Mahncke observed. "So, we have many new areas to explore for application of this type of training. We're pretty excited about that!"
About Posit Science Posit Science is the leading provider of clinically proven brain fitness training. Its exercises, available online at www.BrainHQ.com, have been shown to significantly improve brain speed, attention, memory and numerous standard measures of quality of life in multiple studies published in more than 60 peer-reviewed articles in leading science and medical journals. Three public television documentaries as well as numerous stories on news programs, in national magazines, and in major newspapers have featured Posit Science's work. The company's science team is led by renowned neuroscientist Michael Merzenich, PhD.
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
For many years there was a consensus that most organisms have a circadian clock. In humans it was considered to be directed centrally by the master clock in the brain region…
For the past 5 years I've served as a consultant to the Yayasan Dharma Bermakna foundation for the development of the AJT test of intelligence in Indonesia. The AJT is a Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) based measure of intelligence. The AJT is the first individually-administered, comprehensive, test of intelligence developed and normed in Indonesia.
The AJT will be one of the most comprehensive intelligence tests in the world--18 individual tests; 8 broad CHC ability domains). The formal launch of the AJT will occur next month (April, 2018) in Indonesia. During one of my recent visits I was filmed discussing various aspects of the AJT. This material is now available in a series of 9 videos [which I don't like to view as I don't like hearing my voice on tape, let alone seeing myself on video :) ..and now I wish I would have worn a suit--but it gets awful hot and humid in Indonesia, especially for someone who lives in Minnesota]. The first is included in this post. You can find the complete list at this link.
Enjoy. Take it easy on me...I am not a professional actor.
I will present material largely based on the forthcoming CHC chapter coauthored with Dr. Joel Schneider. Tune it....it shall be fun. Or, watch the discussion later on YouTube, and eventually as an audio podcast on iTunes
___
When writing a song or a piece of prose, I often choose to let my mind wander, hoping the muse will strike. If it does, it not only moves my work along but feels great, too!
That's why I was troubled by studies that found an association between mind-wandering and problems like unhappiness and depression—and even a shorter life expectancy. This research suggests that focusing one's thoughts on the present moment is linked to well-being, while spacing out—which I personally love to do—is not.
Now, new studies are bringing nuance to this science. Whether or not mind-wandering is a negative depends on a lot of factors—like whether it's purposeful or spontaneous, the content of your musings, and what kind of mood you are in. In some cases, a wandering mind can lead to creativity, better moods, greater productivity, and more concrete goals.
Here is what some recent research says about the upsides of a meandering mind.
Mind-wandering can make you more creative
It's probably not a big surprise that mind-wandering augments creativity—particularly "divergent thinking," or being able to come up with novel ideas.
In one study, researchers gave participants a creativity test called the Unusual Uses Task that asks you to dream up novel uses for an everyday item, like a paperclip or a newspaper. Between the first and second stages, participants either engaged in an undemanding task to encourage mind-wandering or a demanding task that took all of their concentration; or they were given a resting period or no rest. Those participants who engaged in mind-wandering during the undemanding task improved their performance much more than any of the other groups. Taking their focus off of the task and mind-wandering, instead, were critical to success.
"The findings reported here provide arguably the most direct evidence to date that conditions that favor mind-wandering also enhance creativity," write the authors. In fact, they add, mind-wandering may "serve as a foundation for creative inspiration."
As a more recent study found, mind-wandering improved people's creativity above and beyond the positive effects of their reading ability or fluid intelligence, the general ability to solve problems or puzzles.
Mind-wandering seems to involve the default network of the brain, which is known to be active when we are not engaged directly in tasks and is also related to creativity.
So perhaps I'm right to let my focus wander while writing: It helps my mind put together information in novel and potentially compelling ways without my realizing it. It's no wonder that my best inspirations seem to come when I'm in the shower or hiking for miles on end.
Mind-wandering can make you happier…depending on the content
The relationship between mind-wandering and mood may be more complicated than we thought.
In one study, researchers pinged participants on a regular basis to see what they were doing, whether or not their minds were wandering, and how they were feeling. As in an earlier experiment, people tended to be in a negative mood when they were mind-wandering. But when researchers examined the content of people's thoughts during mind-wandering, they found an interesting caveat: If participants' minds were engaged in interesting, off-task musings, their moods became more positive rather than more negative.
As the authors conclude, "Those of us who regularly find our minds in the clouds—musing about the topics that most engage us—can take solace in knowing that at least this form of mind-wandering is associated with elevated mood."
It may be that mood affects mind-wandering more than the other way around. In a similar study, researchers concluded that feeling sad or being in a bad mood tended to lead to unhappy mind-wandering, but that mind-wandering itself didn't lead to later bad moods. Earlier experiments may have conflated mind-wandering with rumination—an unhealthy preoccupation with past failures that is tied to depression.
"This study suggests that mind-wandering is not something that is inherently bad for our happiness," write the authors. Instead, "Sadness is likely to lead the mind to wander and that mind-wandering is likely to be [emotionally] negative."
A review of the research on mind-wandering came to a similar conclusion: Mind-wandering is distinct from rumination and therefore has a different relationship to mood.
Can we actually direct our mind-wandering toward more positive thoughts and away from rumination? It turns out that we can! One study found that people who engaged in compassion-focused meditation practices had more positive mind-wandering. As an added bonus, people with more positive mind-wandering were also more caring toward themselves and others, which itself is tied to happiness.
Mind-wandering may improve job performance
Taking a break from work can be a good thing—perhaps because our minds are freer to wander.
Mind-wandering is particularly useful when work is mind-numbing. In one study, participants reported on their mind-wandering during a repetitive task. Participants who engaged in more mind-wandering performed better and faster, decreasing their response times significantly. The researchers speculated that mind-wandering allowed people to go off-task briefly, reset, and see data with fresh eyes—so that they didn't miss sudden changes.
In another study, researchers aimed to figure out what parts of the brain were implicated in mind-wandering and discovered something unexpected. When their frontal lobes were stimulated with a small electrical current to boost mind-wandering, people's performance on an attention task slightly improved.
Of course, not every job calls for mind-wandering. A surgeon or a driver should stay focused on the task at hand, since mind-wandering could be detrimental to both. On the other hand, even for them it might be rejuvenating to take a mind-wandering break after their workday is over, leading to more focused attention the next time around.
Mind-wandering may help us with goal-setting
It seems like mind-wandering would be detrimental when it comes to planning for the future. In fact, some research suggests mind-wandering can improve goal-setting.
In a recent neuroscience experiment, participants did an undemanding task and reported on the content of their thoughts as researchers scanned their brains with fMRI. Afterwards, they wrote for 15 minutes about personal goals or TV programs (the control group). Then, they repeated these two tasks—the undemanding one and writing about goals or TV.
Analyzers unaware of the study's purpose were asked to assess the concreteness of participants' goal-setting and TV program descriptions. The result? People with wandering minds—who probably started musing about what they really wanted in life after the first writing session—ultimately came up with more concrete and higher-quality goal descriptions in the second session. Over the course of the experiment, their brains also showed an increase in connectivity between the hippocampus and the pre-frontal cortex—areas implicated in goal-setting.
Research has also found that, the more people engage in mind-wandering during a task, the more they are willing to wait for a reward afterwards. According to the researchers, this suggests that mind-wandering helps delay gratification and "engages processes associated with the successful management of long-term goals."
On the other hand, some research suggests mind-wandering makes us less "gritty"—or less able to stay focused on our goals to completion—especially if it is spontaneous rather than deliberate. So, it may be important to consider where you are in the process of goal creation before deciding mind-wandering would be a good idea.
None of this suggests that mind-wandering is better for us than being focused. More likely, both aspects of cognition serve a purpose. Under the right circumstances, a wandering mind may actually benefit us and possibly those around us. The trick is to know when to set your mind free. — Jill Suttie, Psy.D., isGreater Good's book review editor and a frequent contributor to the magazine. Based at UC-Berkeley, Greater Good highlights ground breaking scientific research into the roots of compassion and altruism. Copyright Greater Good. Related articles:
Much new is occurring regarding the domain of Gv. Below is a new review of the Gv research and a proposed heuristic framework. This is then followed by select excerpts from our (Schneider and McGrew, 2018) upcoming CHC update chapter in the CIA book, where we add some caution regarding new “proposed”Gv frameworks.
A Heuristic Framework of Spatial Ability: A Review and Synthesis of Spatial Factor Literature to Support its Translation into STEM Education. Article link.
Jeffrey Buckley & Niall Seery & Donal Canty
Abstract
An abundance of empirical evidence exists identifying a significant correlation between spatial ability and educational performance particularly in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). Despite this evidence, a causal explanation has yet to be identified. Pertinent research illustrates that spatial ability can be developed and that doing so has positive educational effects. However, contention exists within the relevant literature concerning the explicit definition for spatial ability. There is therefore a need to define spatial ability relative to empirical evidence which in this circumstance relates to its factor structure. Substantial empirical evidence supports the existence of unique spatial factors not represented in modern frameworks. Further understanding such factors can support the development of educational interventions to increase their efficacy and related effects in STEM education. It may also lead to the identification of why spatial ability has such a significant impact on STEM educational achievement as examining more factors in practice can help in deducing which are most important. In light of this, a synthesis of the spatial factors offered within existing frameworks with those suggested within contempo-rary studies is presented to guide further investigation and the translation of spatial ability research to further enhance learning in STEM education.
The following are select sections of our Gv chapter in the forthcoming CIA book.
Visual processing (Gv) can be defined as the ability to make use of simulated mental imagery to solve problems—perceiving, discriminating, manipulating, and recalling nonlinguistic images in the “mind’s eye.” Humans do more than “act” in space; they “cognize” about space (Tommasi & Laeng, 2012). Once the eyes have transmitted visual information, the visual system of the brain automatically performs several low-level computations (e.g., edge detection, light–dark perception, color differentiation, motion detection). The results of these low-level computations are used by various higher-order processors to infer more complex aspects of the visual image (e.g., object recognition, constructing models of spatial configuration, motion prediction). Traditionally, tests measuring Gv are designed to measure individual differences in these higher-order processes as they work in tandem to perceive relevant information (e.g., a truck is approaching!) and solve problems of a visual-–spatial nature (e.g., arranging suitcases in a car trunk).
Among the CHC domains, Gv has been one of the most studied (Carroll, 1993). Yet it has long been considered a second-class citizen in psychometric models of intelligence, due in large part to its relatively weak or inconsistent prediction of important outcomes in comparison to powerhouse abilities like Gf and Gc (Lohman, 1996). But “the times they are a-changing.” Carroll (1993), citing Eliot and Smith (1983), summarized three phases of research on spatial abilities, ending in large part in the late 1970s to early 1980s (Lohman, 1979). A reading of Carroll’s survey conveys the impression that his synthesis reflects nothing more than what was largely known already in the 1980s. We believe that the Gv domain is entering a fourth period and undergoing a new renaissance, which will result in its increased status in CHC theory and eventually in cognitive assessment. Carroll, the oracle, provided a few hints in his 1993 Gv chapter.
Carroll (1993) was prophetic regarding two of the targets of the resurgent interest in Gv and Gv-related constellations (often broadly referred to as spatial thinking, spatial cognition, spatial intelligence, or spatial expertise; Hegarty, 2010; National Research Council, 2006). In Carroll’s discussion of “other possible visual perception factors” (which he did not accord formal status in his model), he mentioned “ecological” abilities (e.g., abilities reflecting a person’s ability to orient the self in real-world space and maintain a sense of direction) and dynamic (vs. static) spatial reasoning factors (e.g., predicting where a moving object is moving and when it will arrive at a predicted location).
Carroll’s ecological abilities are reflected in a growing body of research regarding large-scale spatial navigation. Large-scale spatial navigation is concerned with finding one’s way, or the ability to represent and maintain a sense of direction and location, and move through the environment (Allen, 2003; Hegarty, 2010; Newcombe, Uttal, & Sauter, 2013; Wolbers & Hegarty, 2010; Yilmaz, 2009). Using a map or smartphone GPS system to find one’s way to a restaurant, and then to return to one’s hotel room, in an unfamiliar large city requires large-scale spatial navigation. A primary distinction between small- and large-scale spatial abilities is the use of different perspectives or frames of reference. Small-scale spatial ability, as represented by traditional psychometric tests on available cognitive or neuropsychological batteries, involves allocentric or object-based transformation.
Large-scale spatial ability typically involves an egocentric spatial transformation, in which the viewer’s internal perspective or frame of reference changes regarding the environment, while the person’s relationship with the objects do not change (Hegarty & Waller, 2004; Newcombe et al., 2013; Wang, Cohen, & Carr, 2014). Recent meta-analyses indicate that large-scale spatial abilities are clearly distinct from small-scale spatial abilities, with an overall correlation of approximately .27. In practical terms, this means that the ability to easily solve the 3D Rubik’s cube may not predict the probability of getting lost in a large, unfamiliar city. Also supporting a clear distinction between the two types of spatial abilities is developmental evidence suggesting that large-scale spatial abilities show a much faster rate of age-related decline, and that the two types are most likely related to different brain networks (Newcombe et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2014).
The distinction between static and dynamic spatial abilities is typically traced to work by Pellegrino and colleagues (Hunt, Pellegrino, Frick, Farr, & Alderton, 1988; Pellegrino, Hunt, Abate, & Farr, 1987) and is now considered one of the two primary organizational facets of spatial thinking (Uttal, Meadow, et al., 2013). Static spatial abilities are well represented by standard tests of Gv (e.g., block design tests). Dynamic and static spatial tasks differ primarily by the presence or absence of movement. “Dynamic spatial ability is one's ability to estimate when a moving object will reach a destination, or one's skill in making time-to-contact (TTC) judgments” (Kyllonen & Chaiken, 2003, p. 233). The ability to catch a football, play a video game, or perform as an air traffic controller requires dynamic spatial abilities, as “one must note the position of the moving object, judge the velocity of the object, anticipate when the object will reach another point (e.g., one's hand, car, or ship), and take some motor action in response to that judgment. In the perception literature, the research surrounding this everyday human information-processing activity has been known as ‘time to collision’” (Kyllonen & Chaiken, 2003, p. 233). Although the dynamic–static distinction has gained considerable traction and support (Allen, 2003; Buckley, Seery, & Canty, 2017; Contreras, Colom, Hernandez, & Santacreu, 2003), some research has questioned whether the underlying difference reflects an actual spatial ability distinction. [AU: Any update on status of Buckley et al.? No] Kyllonen and Chaiken (2003) reported research suggesting that the underlying cognitive process involved in performing dynamic spatial tasks may be a nonspatial, counting-like clock mechanism—temporal processing, not spatial.
The driving forces behind the increased interest and new conceptual developments regarding spatial thinking are threefold. First, rapid technological changes in the past decade have now made access to relatively cheap and accessible visual-graphic-based technology available to large portions of the population. Individuals can immerse themselves in 3D virtual-reality environments for pleasure or learning. Computer visualizations, often available on smartphones and computer tablets, can be used to teach medical students human anatomy and surgery. The complexities and nuances underling “bid data” can now be unearthed with complex visual network models than can be rotated at will. Anyone can learn geography by zooming over the world via Google Earth to explore locations and cities. Individuals rely on car- or phone-based GPS visual navigation systems to move from point A to point B. Clearly, developing Gv abilities (or spatial thinking) is becoming simultaneously easier via technology, but also more demanding as humans must learn how to use and understand Gv graphic interface tools that present complex visual displays of multidimensional information.
Second, ever-increasing calls have been made to embed spatial thinking throughout the educational curriculum—“spatializing” the curriculum (Newcombe, 2013)—to raise the collective spatial intelligence of our children and youth (Hegarty, 2010; National Research Council, 2006). The extant research has demonstrated a significant link between spatial abilities and educational performance in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM; Buckley et al., 2017; Hegarty, 2010; Lubinski, 2010; Newcombe et al., 2013). Gv abilities and individuals with spatially oriented cognitive “tilts” (Lubinksi, 2010) are becoming increasingly valued by technologically advanced societies. More important, research has demonstrated that spatial abilities or strategies are malleable (National Research Council, 2006; Tzuriel & Egozi, 2010; Uttal, Meadow, et al., 2013; Uttal, Miller, & Newcombe, 2013).
Although many psychologists are important drivers of the renewed interest in an expanded notion of the conceptualization and measurement of Gv (e.g., Allen, 2003; Hegarty, 2010; Kyllonen & Chaiken, 2009; Kyllonen & Gluck, 2003; Lubinski, 2010; Uttal, Miller, et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2014), some of the more active research and conceptualizing are being driven by researchers in education (e.g., National Research Council, 2006; Yilmaz, 2009), cognitive neuroscience (e.g., Thompson, Slotnick, Burrage, & Kosslyn, 2009; Wolbers & Hegarty, 2010), and the STEM disciplines (Harle & Towns, 2010; Seery, Buckley, & Delahunty, 2015). Clearly the CHC model’s “mind’s eye” (Gv) is achieving more prominence, which needs to be supported with renewed research on yet to be identified well-supported additional narrow abilities and innovative measurement methods, particularly regarding large-scale and dynamic spatial abilities.
Do other Gv narrow abilities exist? Of course. As with all CHC domains, the validated narrow abilities in the current taxonomy are largely the result of bottom-up programs of research predicated on developing tests for practical purposes (e.g., prediction, diagnosis). Recent conceptualizations of Gv as a broader spatial thinking construct; the dynamic versus spatial and large-scale versus small-scale conceptualizations; and other functional family conceptualizations of Gv abilities are opening a potential Pandora’s box of hypothesized new Gv narrow abilities. For example, Buckley and colleagues (2017) have proposed a comprehensive Gv taxonomy that includes the current Gv abilities and posits 16 potential new narrow abilities based on either theory or research, some previously reviewed by Carroll (1993). These possible new narrow abilities are related to classic spatial tasks (spatial orientation); imagery (quality and speed); illusions (shape and direction, size contrast, overestimation and underestimation, frame of reference); judgments (direction, speed, movement); and dynamic versions of current Gv abilities (visual memory, serial perceptual integration, spatial scanning, perceptual alternations).
These new Gv conceptualizations are welcomed, but they must be studied with serious caution. All new candidates for Gv abilities will need to be validated with well-conceptualized structural validity research (see “Criteria for Updating CHC Theory,” above). Also, if new Gv abilities are identified, it is important to determine whether they have any practical use or validity. An instructive example is a recent CFA CHC-designed study that provided preliminary support for a narrow ability of face recognition (called face identification recognition by the researchers), distinct from other Gv and CHC abilities (Gignac, Shankaralingam, Walker, & Kilpatrick, 2016). The face recognition ability may have practical usefulness, as it could facilitate measurement and research regarding the phenomenon of prosopagnosia (in which a cognitively capable individual is completely unable to recognize familiar faces). Although it is important to guard against premature hardening of the CHC categories (McGrew, 2005; Schneider & McGrew, 2012), we believe that even greater due diligence is necessary to prevent premature proliferation of new entries in the Gv domain in the CHC model. We don’t want to be at a place soon where formal START negotiations (STrategic Ability Reduction Talks) are necessary to halt unsupported speculation about and proliferation of Gv abilities.
This was a pleasant surprise. I knew my 2009 Intelligence article was cited frequently but I never knew it was number one from 2008-2015 and it made the top 10 all time list for the journal Intelligence. I believe this is a reflection of the impact the CHC taxonomy has had. This should make my mom proud. Here is a link to the original article.
Bibliometric analysis across eight years 2008–2015 of Intelligence articles: An updating of Wicherts (2009). Article link.
Bryan J. Pesta
Abstract
I update and expand upon Wicherts' (2009) editorial in Intelligence. He reported citation counts of papers pub-lished in this journal from 1977 to 2007. All these papers are now at least a decade old, and many more new articles have been published since Wichert's analysis. An updated study is needed to help (1) quantify the journal's more recent impact on the scientific study of intelligence, and (2) alert researchers and educators to highly-cited articles; especially newer ones. Thus, I conducted a bibliometric analysis of all articles published here from 2008 to 2015. Data sources included both the Web of Science (WOS), and Google Scholar (GS). The eight-year set comprised 619 articles, published by 1897 authors. The average article had 17.0 (WOS), and 32.9 (GS) citations overall (2.75, and 5.33 citations per year, respectively). These metrics compare favorably with those from other psychology journals. In addition, a list of the most prolific authors is provided. Also reported is a list showing many articles in this set with counts greater than one hundred, and an updated top 25 list for the history of this journal.
“Also noteworthy is that nine of the articles in the old list (not shown here) dropped off the new list. Of their replacements, only three of the nine were published within the last decade: Deary, Strand, Smith, and Fernandes (2007); McGrew (2009), and Strenze (2007). The McGrew (2009) paper is again notable. It is the only article in my newer set (2008–2015) to make the all-time list. The paper ranks ninth on the all-time list with 281 citations, just eight years after being published.”
More recent Google Scholar citation info indicates that the article is still going strong from 2016-2017.
Dr. Lieff is an excellent thinker and writer worth following
The Five Secrets of Brain Health
The brain is a 3-pound organ in our body, which, like any other organ, can be healthy or unhealthy. Uniquely, the brain is intertwined with our mind, emotions,…
As readers of this blog will know, it is usually Woodley of Menie who darkens these pages with talk of genetic ruin, while James Flynn is the plucky New Zealander…
Thinking, Sensing & Behaving Diseases & Disorders BrainFacts/SfN • 4 min BrainFacts/SfN • 5 min Brain Anatomy & Function BrainFacts/SfN BrainFacts/SfN Neuroscience in Society
******************************************************
Kevin McGrew, PhD
Educational Psychologist
Director, Institute for Applied Psychometrics
IAP
www.themindhub.com ******************************************************
This is a very cool methodology. I have become convinced that tools from the field of network science need to be applied to intelligence test data. When I can find the time (LOL) I hope to use this methodology on the WJ IV norm data. I think it would be much more informative that CFA analysis of intelligence test data
What lies at the dark heart of psychopathy? Is it a lack or emotion and empathy, a willingness to manipulate others – or, perhaps, a failure to take responsibility for misdeeds? All of these traits, and many more, are viewed as aspects of a psychopathic personality. But there's still a debate among experts about which of these are core, and which less important.
Now a new study of 7,450 criminal offenders in the US and the Netherlands, published in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, has identified what the researchers believe are the psychopath's most "central" traits . But while there were striking similarities in the data from the two countries, there were also intriguing differences. This raises the question: does the meaning of the term "psychopath" vary between cultures?
Researchers from the Netherlands and the US, led by Bruno Verschuere at the University of Amsterdam, analysed the offenders' scores on the widely-used Psychopathy Checklist – Revised (PC-R). The PC-R comprises 20 questions about a range of traits related to four aspects of psychopathy: affective problems (a lack of empathy, fearlessness, and shallow emotional experience); interpersonal (being detached or a pathological liar, for example); lifestyle (being irresponsible and having poor behavioural control, for example); and being antisocial (showing early behavioural problems, and later criminal behaviour).
Between 20 to 22 per cent of the US offenders, and 28 per cent of the offenders in the Netherlands, were clinical psychopaths, based on their PC-R scores (as judged by trained research assistants in each country who drew on "extensive interview and collateral file information" for each offender). This difference between the countries was not a surprise, as the group from the Netherlands were all violent, mentally unwell offenders, whereas one US group consisted of general offenders from state prisons in Wisconsin, and the other comprised offenders in jail or on substance treatment programmes in five other US states.
The researchers performed a "network analysis" on the offenders' PC-R scores, mainly focused on centrality – so, among clinical psychopaths, identifying which item or items were most often present. But they also looked at relationships between items – so if pathological lying was present, for example, then identifying which other items were often, or rarely, present.
The results showed that "callousness/lack of empathy" was the most central item in both of the US samples. As the researchers note, "this aligns with classic clinical descriptions and prototypicality studies of psychopathy." But for the offenders from the Netherlands, while "callousness/lack of empathy" was fairly central, a "parasitic lifestyle" and "irresponsibility" were most central.
For the US samples, the items that appeared most peripheral to psychopathy were "many short-term marital relations", "lack of realistic long-term goals" (in the Wisconsin offenders only) and "revocation of conditional release" (this refers to failing to fulfil the terms of probation, for example).
For the offenders from the Netherlands, "Promiscuous sexual behaviour" and "many short-term marital relations" were also among the most peripheral items, but, surprisingly, so too was "shallow affect", an item that was actually the second most-central for the Wisconsin group.
In a bid to address the non-geographical differences between the US and Dutch groups, the researchers extracted a subsample from the Dutch group, excluding those with indications of current or past severe psychopathology, but the results still showed that a parasitic lifestyle and irresponsibility (not callousness, as in the US groups), were the most central items for psychopaths in the Netherlands.
The results raise the possibility, the researchers suggest, that there might be cross-cultural differences in how psychopathy manifests – or at least in how the PC-R is scored by trained raters in different counties. Further work should help to clarify this.
"Extending network analyses to different measures, samples and cultures should shed further light on the core characteristics of psychopathy," they write, "and perhaps ultimately on the unresolved question of what psychopathy is."
___
— Jill Suttie, Psy.D., is Greater Good's book review editor and a frequent contributor to the magazine. Based at UC-Berkeley, Greater Good highlights ground breaking scientific research into the roots of compassion and altruism. Copyright Greater Good.
