Berlin BIS model of intelligence--material to review

I previously suggested that American intelligence scholars need to pay more attention to the Berlin BIS facted model of intelligence and how it can interface with CHC theory (see March 28, 2005 post). In a response to my recent post ("g, working memory, specific CHC abilities and achievement"), Werner Wittmann extends this recommendation and, more importantly, directs IQ blogsters to a number of on-line papers and PowerPoint presentations.

For those who did not notice Werner's comment, below are the links he provided

• 1977 paper presented at ISSID conference in Aarhus, Denmark.

• 2004 PowerPoint presented APS in Atlanta - deals with working memory, intelligence and Phil Ackerman's PPIK-theory under a Brunswik symmetry perspective. [Editorial note - I'm a big fan of Ackerman's PPIK theory, particularly his work on aptitude-trait complexes, which follow's in the footsteps of Richard Snow's work on aptitudes.]

• 2004 presentation at the 4th Spearman conference - relating Brunswik symmetry to education

Thanks to Werner for being an active reader and FYI contributor to this blog.

Research byte: Investment traits and intelligence - meta-analytic review

I am a huge fan of the aptitude work of Richard Snow which has influenced the work of the likes of Dr. Phil Ackerman and his PPIK model of adult intelligence. All of this work fits within the "Beyond IQ" series of posts I have made for many years.  

Today I was pleased to see a new meta-analytic review by von Stumm and Ackerman that investigated the relations between "investment traits" and intelligence. A preview of the article is below. [Click on images to enlarge]

 

 

Posted with Blogsy

Beyond IQ (aka Forrest Gump effect): Why there is more to academic achievement than IQ?

This article is an excellent overview of the importance of non-cognitive traits in understanding academic achievement. I have long believed that Richard Snow's work on trait complexes and aptitude has too long been ignored in assessment practice, as well as the PPIK trait complex work of Ackerman. Human behavior is multivariate and complex....there is a serious need to move Beyond IQ.

Click on image to enlarge. Additional comments and links to other sources are embedded in annotated article as per IQs Reading feature.




Below is model of personal competence from article referenced (with link) in PDF of article.



- iPost using BlogPress from my Kevin McGrew's iPad

intelligence IQ tests IQ testing IQ scores CHC intelligence theory CHC theory Cattell-Horn-Carroll human cognitive abilities psychology school psychology individual differences cognitive psychology neuropsychology neuroscience psychology special education educational psychology psychometrics psychological assessment psychological measurement IQs Corner general intelligence trait complexes personality conative motivation achievement school learning MACMM model Beyond IQ

Generated by: Tag Generator

Journal of Intelligence “Best Paper Award” for McGrew, Schneider, Decker & Bulut (2023) Psychometric network analysis of CHC measures - #psychometric #networkanalysis #intelligence #CHC #WJIV #bestpaper #schoolpsychology #schoolpsychologist

Today I (Kevin McGrew), and colleagues Joel Schneider, Scott Decker, and Okan Bulut, were pleased to learn that our recent 2023 Journal of Intelligence article listed above (open access—click link to read or download) was selected as 1 of 2 “Best Paper Awards” for 2023.  

As stated at the journal award page, “The Journal of Intelligence Best Paper Award is granted annually to highlight publications of high quality, scientific significance, and extensive influence. The evaluation committee members choose two articles of exceptional quality that were published in the journal the previous year and announce them online by the end of June.”

Below is the abstract and two figures that may pique your interest. We thank the members of the JOI evaluation committee.

Abstract

For over a century, the structure of intelligence has been dominated by factor analytic methods that presume tests are indicators of latent entities (e.g., general intelligence or g). Recently, psychometric network methods and theories (e.g., process overlap theory; dynamic mutualism) have provided alternatives to g-centric factor models. However, few studies have investigated contemporary cognitive measures using network methods. We apply a Gaussian graphical network model to the age 9–19 standardization sample of the Woodcock–Johnson Tests of Cognitive Ability—Fourth Edition. Results support the primary broad abilities from the Cattell–Horn–Carroll (CHC) theory and suggest that the working memory–attentional control complex may be central to understanding a CHC network model of intelligence. Supplementary multidimensional scaling analyses indicate the existence of possible higher-order dimensions (PPIK; triadic theory; System I-II cognitive processing) as well as separate learning and retrieval aspects of long-term memory. Overall, the network approach offers a viable alternative to factor models with a g-centric bias (i.e., bifactor models) that have led to erroneous conclusions regarding the utility of broad CHC scores in test interpretation beyond the full-scale IQ, g.

Keywords: 

CHC; Cattell–Horn–Cattell theory; intelligence; cognitive abilities; psychometric network analysis; process overlap theory; dynamic mutualism; factor analysis; general intelligence

Click on images to enlarge for easier viewing/reading

Beyond CHC: Cognitive-Aptitude-Achievement Trait Complexes (CAATC)

This current post is a continuation of a loosely connected set of recent posts I have made in an attempt to better understand the human ability constructs of cognitive ability, aptitude, and achievement abilities.  These efforts are part of a manuscript in development, which I will announce when completed.

Today’s post defines a cognitive-aptitude-trait complex (CAATC).  This material should have been included in my prior Clarification of Intellectual Ability Constructs post, but my thinking (based on subsequent data analyses) had not yet crystallized.  I would strongly urge readers to visit that prior post before reading the current post.  Similarly, another prior post that defined and demonstrated how to develop developmentally-sensitive CHC-consistent scholastic aptitude clusters is must as a background read.  The concept of scholastic aptitude is integral to the current post.  Finally, if readers are not familiar with the current pattern of strengths and weakness (POSW) third-method SLD identification models should take a quick skim of Flanagan and Fiorrello (2010).  Since the following text is in the formative stages, I have not included all the references.  Where possible, I provide hyperlinks to some references for those who may want to read these sources.

Beyond CHC:  Cognitive-Aptitude-Achievement Trait Complexes (CAATC)

I believe that the various third method SLD methods would benefit from being framed in a broader conceptual and theoretical framework.  Regardless of the SLD model name (e.g., concordance-discordance; discrepancy/consistency; dual discrepancy/consistency), the models, at their core, are all based on the notion of a specific pattern or configuration of abilities, aptitudes, and achievements related to different types of SLD in different achievement domains (see Flanagan & Fiorrello, 2010).  The visual-graphic representation of each model typically includes three shapes (representing construct domains) and simple discrepancy comparisons between the domains (typically designated by arrows).    Although clean and efficient for enhancing conceptual understanding, such models tend to implicitly suggest a somewhat simplistic multiple domain discrepancy score approach to defining SLD.  Furthermore, the rationales for these models reflect a parochial foundation in contemporary federal SLD regulations, and contemporary research from the fields of special education, school psychology/neuropsychology, and psychometric factor-analysis intelligence research.  Seminal and historical research from other corners of psychology (e.g., individual differences, educational psychology), that has focused on the development of theories and methods for measuring and describing characteristic patterns or configurations of different human ability traits, is largely ignored in this contemporary SLD model literature. 

Richard Snow’s seminal study of aptitude complexes (which, at various times, he also referred to as compounds and configurations) (Corno et al., 2002; Snow, 1987) is the most prominent educational psychology example.  Building on Snow’s work, Ackerman’s (1996) PPIK (intelligence-as-process, personality, interests, intelligence-as-knowledge) model of intelligence has produced intriguing research-based insights into trait complexes.  In an Annual Review of Psychology article on individual differences in intelligence (Scientific and Social Significance of Assessing Individual Differences:“Sinking Shafts at a Few Critical Points”), Lubinski (2000) recognizes the similarity of the work of Snow and Ackerman (and others) via the discussion of the constellations of cross-domain attributes.  Although these programs of research have typically dealt with a broader array of human trait domains (intelligence, achievement, motivation, personality, interests, etc.), the focus on patterns or configurations across and within domains is similar to the focus of contemporary SLD third method models. 

I believe that research and conceptualization of the third-method POSW SLD models would benefit from being viewed as a narrow subset of a larger set of trait complexes.  Contemporary SLD assessment research could benefit from the conceptual and methodological progress demonstrated by trait-complex organized research (e.g., see Ackerman, 1996, 2000; Ackerman, Bowen, Beier & Kanfer, 2001; Ackerman, Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2011).[1]  For example, this historical research would serve to remind contemporary assessment personal that aptitude-achievement relations are not readily captured in simple linear relations (and figures) and often requires interactions and the conceptualization of relations in multidimensional hyperspace (see Snow, 1987).

To advance this suggestion, I suggest the various third-method POSW SLD models be considered attempts to understand and measure cognitive-aptitude-achievement trait complexes.  Borrowing liberally from Ackerman (Ackerman, 1997; Ackerman & Beier, 2005), who in turn drew on the seminal work of Cronbach (1967) and Snow (1989), a trait complex is defined in the most general sense as “sets of traits that combine to affect some type of outcome…the sets of traits are sufficiently interrelated to suggest exploration of mutually causal interdependencies” (Ackerman, 1997, p. 187).  This definition is consistent with the definition in the Shorter English Dictionary (2002) which defines the noun complex as “1  A complex whole; a group of related elements…2  Chemistry.  A substance or species formed by the combination of simpler ones” (p. 468; bold in original).  In the current context I define a cognitive-aptitude-achievement trait complex (CAATC) as a constellation or combination of related cognitive, aptitude, and achievement traits that, when combined together in a functional fashion, facilitate or impede the acquisition of academic learning. 

In my next post in this series I will present formative exploratory data analyses that I believes offers hope for better measuring, describing, and explaining school learning—with implications for revisions of current third method SLD identification models.

---

[1] The use of this broader context also serves as a necessary reminder (and link to research) that one of the primary goals of cognitive, aptitude, achievement testing is the identification of aptitude-treatment-interactions (ATI’s) that can inform instruction interventions (see Corno et al., 2002).

Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory of cognitive abilities (v2.5) "official" broad and narrow defilntions

This was first published 7-10-17.  A minor edit to the working memory capacity code (Wc and not WM) was made 7-20-17.

CHC broad and narrow ability definitions (07-20-17)-v 2.5

(Abstracted from: Schneider, W. J., & McGrew, K. S. (in press). The Cattell-Horn-Carroll Theory of Cognitive Abilities. In D. P. Flanagan & Erin M .McDonough (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests and issues (4^th ed.,) New York: Guilford Press.)

Narrow abilities with bold font = major ability; regular font = minor ability.  If all factor codes are regular font under a broad ability = insufficient data to classify as major or minor (Schneider & McGrew, in press).   Italic narrow factor code font designates “tentative” abilities.   Broad ability color codes (as per Ackerman et al.’s PPIK model of intelligence).  Blue – Intelligence-as-process; Gray – Intelligence-as-knowledge; Green – Intelligence-as-Process (speed/fluency); Red = other tentatively identified broad abilities.

 Dr. Joel Schneider and I have recently submitted our new/revised Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory chapter for publication in the 4th edition of the Flanagan and Harrison Contemporary intellectual assessment book (see reference above).  Most of the CHC broad and narrow definitions did not change, some changed in minor ways, and others changed significantly.  The rationale for changes will be presented in our chapter when the book is published.  Here I present the abstracted up-to-date definitions.  A PDF copy an be downloaded here.  Be sure to purchase the book when it becomes available to learn more about the changes in some of the definitions and proposed revisions to CHC theory.

Fluid reasoning (Gf): The use of deliberate and controlled procedures (often requiring focused attention) to solve novel “on the spot” problems that cannot be solved by using previously learned habits, schemas, and scripts.

·   Induction (I): The ability to observe a phenomenon and discover the underlying principles or rules that determine its behavior. This ability is also known as rule inference.

·   General sequential reasoning (RG): The ability to reason logically using known premises and principles. This ability is also known as deductive reasoning or rule application.

·   Quantitative reasoning (RQ): The ability to reason with quantities, mathematical relations, and operators.

·   Reasoning Speed (RE):  The ability to reason with quantities, mathematical relations, and operators.

·   Piagetian Reasoning (RP):  Seriation, conservation, classification and other cognitive abilities as defined by Piaget’s developmental theory.

Short-term working memory (Gwm): The ability to maintain and manipulate information in active attention. The mind’s mental “scratchpad” or “workbench.”  

·   Auditory short-term storage (Wa):  The ability to encode and maintain verbal information in primary memory.

·   Visual-spatial short-term storage (Wv): The ability to encode and maintain visual information in primary memory.

·   Attentional Control (AC):  The ability to manipulate the spotlight of attention flexibly to focus on task-relevant stimuli and ignore task irrelevant stimuli. Sometimes referred to as spotlight or focal attention, focus, control of attention, executive controlled attention, or executive attention.

·   Working memory capacity (WM):  The ability to manipulate information in primary memory.  Technically not a narrow ability (WMC = short-term storage + AC).

Learning efficiency (Gl):  The ability the ability to learn, store, and consolidate new information over periods of time measured in minutes, hours, days, and years.

·   Associative memory (MA):  The ability to form a link between two previously unrelated stimuli such that the subsequent presentation of one of the stimuli serves to activate the recall of the other stimuli.

·   Meaningful memory (MM):  The ability to remember narratives and other forms of semantically related information.

·   Free recall memory (M6): The ability to recall lists in any order.

Visual-spatial processing (Gv):  The ability to make use of simulated mental imagery to solve problems.  Perceiving, discriminating and manipulating images in the “mind’s eye.”

·   Visualization (Vz):  The ability to perceive complex visual patterns and mentally simulate how they might look when transformed (e.g., rotated, changed in size, partially obscured, and so forth).

·   Speeded rotation (SR):  The ability to solve problems quickly using mental rotation of simple images. This ability is similar to Vz but is distinct because as it involves the speed at which mental rotation tasks can be completed.

·   Imagery (IM):  The ability to voluntarily mentally produce very vivid images of objects, people or events that are not actually present.

·   Closure speed (CS):  The ability to quickly identify and access a familiar, meaningful visual object stored in long-term memory from incomplete or obscured (e.g., vague, partially obscured, disguised, disconnected) visual cues of the object without knowing in advance what the object is.

·   Flexibility of closure (CF):  The ability to identify a visual figure or pattern embedded in a complex distracting or disguised visual pattern or array, when one knows in advance what the pattern is.

·   Visual memory (MV):  The ability to remember complex visual images over short periods of time (less than 30 seconds).

·   Spatial scanning (SS):  The ability to quickly and accurately survey (visually explore) a wide or complicated spatial field or pattern with multiple obstacles and identify a target configuration or identify a path through the field to a target end point.

·   Serial perceptual integration (PI):  The ability to recognize an object after only parts of it are shown in rapid succession.

·   Length estimation (LE):  The ability to visually estimate the length of objects (without using measurement instruments).

·   Perceptual illusions (IL):  The ability to not be fooled by visual illusions.

·   Perceptual alternations (PN): Consistency in the rate of alternating between different visual perceptions.

·   Perceptual speed (P):  See definition under Gs.  P has a secondary loading on Gv.

Auditory processing (Ga):  The ability to discriminate, remember, reason, and work creatively (on) auditory stimuli, which may consist of tones, environmental sounds, and speech units.

·   Phonetic coding (PC):  The ability to distinctly hear phonemes, blend sounds into words, and segment words into parts, sounds, or phonemes. 

·   Speech sound discrimination (US):  The ability to detect and discriminate differences in speech sounds (other than phonemes) under conditions of little or no distraction or distortion.

·   Resistance to auditory stimulus distortion (UR):  The ability to hear words or extended speech passages correctly under conditions of distortion or background noise.

·   Maintaining and judging rhythm (U8):  The ability to recognize and maintain a musical beat.

·   Memory for sound patterns (UM):  The ability to retain (on a short-term basis) auditory codes such as tones, tonal patterns, or speech sounds.

·   Musical discrimination and judgment (U1 U9):  The ability to discriminate and judge tonal patterns in music with respect to melodic, harmonic, and expressive characteristics (phrasing, tempo, harmonic complexity, intensity variations).

·   Absolute pitch (UP):  The ability to perfectly identify the pitch of tones.

·   Sound localization (UL):  The ability to localize heard sounds in space.

Comprehension-knowledge (Gc):  The ability to comprehend and communicate culturally-valued knowledge. Gc includes the depth and breadth of both declarative and procedural knowledge and skills such as language, words, and general knowledge developed through experience, learning and acculturation.

·   Language Development (LD):  An intermediate stratum ability to comprehend and communicate using language. The general understanding of spoken language at the level of words, idioms, and sentences. 

·   Lexical knowledge (VL):  The knowledge of the definitions of words and the concepts that underlie them. Vocabulary knowledge.

·   General (verbal) information (K0):  The breadth and depth of knowledge that one’s culture deems essential, practical, or worthwhile for everyone to know.

·   Listening ability (LS): The ability to understand speech.  This ability starts with comprehending single words and increases to long complex verbal statements.

·   Communication ability (CM):  The ability to use speech to communicate effectively.

·   Grammatical sensitivity (MY):  The awareness of the formal rules of grammar and morphology of words in speech.

Domain-specific knowledge (Gkn):  The depth, breadth, and mastery of specialized declarative and procedural knowledge (knowledge not all members of a society are expected to have).  The Gkn domain is likely to contain more narrow abilities than are currently listed in the CHC model.

·   General science information (K1):  The range of scientific knowledge (e.g., biology, physics, engineering, mechanics, electronics).

·   Knowledge of culture (K2):  The range of knowledge about the humanities (e.g., philosophy, religion, history, literature, music, and art).

·   Mechanical knowledge (MK):  Knowledge about the function, terminology, and operation of ordinary tools, machines, and equipment.

·   Foreign language proficiency (KL):  Similar to language development (see Gc) but in another language.

·   Knowledge of signing (KF):  The knowledge of finger spelling and signing (e.g., American Sign Language).

·   Skill in lip reading (LP):  Competence in the ability to understand communication from others by watching the movement of their mouths and expressions.

Reading and writing (Grw):  The depth and breadth of declarative and procedural knowledge and skills related to written language.

·   Reading comprehension (RC):  The ability to understand written discourse.

·   Reading decoding (RD):  The ability to identify words from text.

·   Reading speed (RS):  The rate at which a person can read connected discourse with full comprehension. Also listed under Gs.

·   Writing ability (WA):  The ability to use written text to communicate ideas clearly.

·   Spelling ability (SG):  The ability to spell words.

·   Writing speed (WS):  The ability to copy or generate text quickly.  Also listed under Gs and Gps.

·   English usage (EU): Knowledge of the mechanics of writing (e.g., capitalization, punctuation, and word usage).

Quantitative knowledge (Gq):   The depth and breadth of declarative and procedural knowledge related to mathematics. The Gq domain is likely to contain more narrow abilities than are currently listed in the CHC model.

·   Mathematical knowledge (KM):  The range of general knowledge, not performance of mathematic operations or the solving of problems.

·   Mathematical achievement (A3):  Measured (tested) mathematics achievement.

Retrieval fluency (Gr):  The rate and fluency at which individuals can access information stored in long-term memory.

·   Ideational fluency (FI):  The ability to rapidly produce a series of ideas, words, or phrases related to a specific condition or object.

·   Expressional fluency (FE):  The ability to rapidly think of different ways of expressing an idea.

·   Associational fluency (FA):  The ability to rapidly produce a series of original or useful ideas related to a particular concept.

·   Sensitivity to problems/alternative solution fluency (SP): The ability to rapidly think of several alternative solutions to a practical problem.

·   Originality/creativity (FO):  The ability to rapidly produce original, clever, and insightful responses (expressions, interpretations) to a given topic, situation, or task.

·   Speed of lexical access (LA):  The ability to rapidly retrieve words from an individual’s lexicon.  Verbal efficiency or automaticity of lexical access.  An intermediate stratum level ability.

·   Naming facility (NA):  The ability to rapidly call objects by their names.

·   Word fluency (FW):  The ability to rapidly produce words that share a phonological (e.g., fluency of retrieval of words via a phonological cue) or semantic feature (e.g., fluency of retrieval of words via a meaning-based representation).

·   Figural fluency (FF):  The ability to rapidly draw or sketch as many things (or elaborations) as possible when presented with a nonmeaningful visual stimulus (e.g., a set of unique visual elements).

·   Figural flexibility (FX):  The ability to rapidly draw different solutions to figural problems.

Processing speed (Gs):  The ability to control attention to automatically, quickly and fluently perform relatively simple repetitive cognitive tasks. Attentional fluency or attentional speediness

·   Perceptual speed (P):  An intermediate stratum level ability that can be defined as the speed and fluency with which similarities or differences in visual stimuli (e.g., letters, numbers, patterns, etc.) can be searched and compared in an extended visual field.

·   Perceptual speed-search (Ps):  The speed and fluency of searching or scanning an extended visual field to locate one or more simple visual patterns

·   Perceptual speed-compare (Pc):  The speed and fluency of looking up and comparing visual stimuli that are side-by-side or more widely separated in an extended visual field.

·   Number facility (N):  The speed, fluency and accuracy in manipulating numbers, comparing number patterns, or completing basic arithmetic.

·   Reading speed (fluency) (RS):  The speed and fluency of reading text with full comprehension. Also listed under Grw.

·   Writing speed (fluency) (WS):  The speed and fluency of generating or copying words or sentences. Also listed under Grw and Gps.

Reaction and decision speed (Gt): The speed of making very simple decisions or judgments when items are presented one at a time.

·   Simple reaction time (R1):  Reaction time to the onset of a single visual or auditory stimulus.

·   Choice reaction time (R2):  Reaction time when a very simple choice must be made.

·   Inspection time (IT):  The speed at which differences in visual stimuli can be perceived.

·   Semantic processing speed (R4):   Reaction time when a decision requires some very simple encoding and mental manipulation of the stimulus content.

·   Mental comparison speed (R7):  The reaction time required when stimuli must be compared for a particular characteristic or attribute.

Psychomotor speed (Gps):   The ability to perform skilled physical body motor movements (e.g., movement of fingers, hands, legs) with precision, coordination, fluidity or strength.

·   Speed of limb movement (R3):  The speed of arm and leg movement. This speed is measured after the movement is initiated. Accuracy is not important.

·   Writing peed (fluency) (WS):  The speed at which written words can be copied. Also listed under Grw and Gps.

·   Speed of articulation (PT): The ability to rapidly perform successive articulations with the speech musculature.

·   Movement time (MT):  The time taken to physically move a body part (e.g., a finger) to make the required response, after a decision or choice has been made, in an elementary cognitive task.

Psychomotor abilities (Gp):  The ability to perform skilled physical body motor movements (e.g., movement of fingers, hands, legs) with precision, coordination, or strength. The Gp domain is likely to contain more narrow abilities than are currently listed in the CHC model.

·   Manual dexterity (P1):  The ability to make precisely coordinated movements of a hand or a hand and the attached arm.

·   Finger dexterity (P2):  The ability to make precisely coordinated movements of the fingers (with or without the manipulation of objects).

·   Static strength (P3):  The ability to exert muscular force to move (push, lift, pull) a relatively heavy or immobile object.

·   Gross body equilibrium (P4):  The ability to maintain the body in an upright position in space or regain balance after balance has been disturbed.

·   Multilimb coordination (P6):  The ability to make quick specific or discrete motor movements of the arms or legs.

·   Arm-hand steadiness (P7):  The ability to precisely and skillfully coordinate arm–hand positioning in space.

·   Control precision (P8):  The ability to exert precise control over muscle movements, typically in response to environmental feedback (e.g., changes in speed or position of object being manipulated).

·   Aiming (AI):  The ability to precisely and fluently execute a sequence of eye–hand coordination movements for positioning purposes.

Olfactory abilities (Go):  The ability to detect and process meaningful information in odors. The Go domain is likely to contain more narrow abilities than are currently listed in the CHC model.

·   Olfactory memory (OM): The ability to recognize previously encountered distinctive odors.

Tactile (haptic) abilities (Gh):   The ability to detect and process meaningful information in haptic (touch) sensations. It includes perceiving, discriminating and manipulating touch stimuli.  Currently there are no well-supported narrow Gh cognitive ability factors.

Kinesthetic abilities (Gk):  The ability to detect and process meaningful information in proprioceptive sensations. Currently there are no well-supported narrow Gk cognitive ability factors within Gk.

Emotional intelligence (Gei):  The ability to perceive emotions expressions, understand emotional behavior, and solve problems using emotions.

·     Emotion perception (Ep):  The ability to accurately recognize emotions in the face, voice, and behavior.

·     Emotion knowledge (Ek):  Knowledge of the antecedents of emotions and the consequences of emotional expression.

·     Emotion management (Em):  The ability to regulate one’s emotions deliberately and adaptively.

·     Emotion utilization (Eu):  The ability to make adaptive use of emotion, especially to facilitate reasoning.