In the latest “unofficial” CHC theory of intellectual abilities description and definition of broad and narrow CHC abilities, Schneider and McGrew [me] (2018), declared the broad Glr ability divorce (which had a trial separation in our prior 2012 CHC chapter) official with the cleaving of Glr into the separate broad abilities of learning efficiency (Gl) and retrieval fluency (Gr). Gl is now “the ability to learn, store, and consolidate new information over periods of time measured in minutes, hours, days, and years” (Schneider & McGrew, 2018, p. 100). Gr is “the rate and fluency at which individuals can access information (Schneider & McGrew, 2018, p. 102).
Schneider and McGrew (2018) recognized the risk involved in using the term learning efficiency for Gl. They stated we:
recognize the risk in using the word efficiency, given the conceptual confusion surrounding the term—stemming from its use in a variety of disciplines and even its multiple meanings within educational psychology (Hoffman, 2012; Hoffman & Schraw, 2009, 2010). We do not mean efficiency as conveyed by the Gs + Gwm mental efficiency notion present in certain intelligence composite scores (the WJ III/WJ IV Cognitive Efficiency cluster; the Wechsler batteries' Cognitive Proficiency Index). Our definition is consistent with Hoffman's (2012) conception as related to the efficiency of learning and storing new information: ‘Learning efficiency is primarily based upon individual performance during learning when accounting for the incremental costs associated with the learning process. Individual performance means measurable changes in the amount, rate, frequency, or qualitative complexity of knowledge structures. Incremental costs mean factors such as time taken, effort invested, or error rates incurred’ (p. 134; original emphasis). For example, to learn and retain a certain amount of information (e.g., a 16-word list), some individuals need to exert more effort than others. To achieve the same outcome, they need more learning inputs (e.g., more learning trials or more time to study) (p. 100).
Although Schneider and McGrew (2018) recommended calling the new CHC Gl domain learning efficiency, they noted that the term learning efficiency has multiple meanings and can suffer from the jingle-jangle fallacy (Kelly, 1927)— “when erroneous assumptions are made that two different things are the same because the same name (the jingle fallacy), or that identical to almost identical things are different because they are labeled differently (the jangle fallacy) (p. 143). As a result, I (Kevin McGrew) have recommended that in the forthcoming WJ V, Gl be called long-term storage instead of learning efficiency. The prior WJ IV had the previous Glr ability domain cluster.
Joel Schneider and I, at some future point, will revisit our official CHC Gl term and definition in future publications.
Schneider, W. J., & McGrew, K. S. (2018). The Cattell-Horn-Carroll Theory of Cognitive Abilities. In D. P. Flanagan & Erin M. McDonough (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests and issues (4th ed., pp. 73-163). New York: Guilford Press.
