New directions in neuropsychological assessment: Augmenting neuropsychological
assessment with CHC cognitive measures
Kevin S. McGrew, PhD
Woodcock-Muñoz Foundation
16th Annual APS College of Clinical Neuropsychologists Conference
From East to West: New directions in Neuropsychology
30 September - 2 October 2010
Notre Dame University, Fremantle, Western Australia
Stay informed
Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory of cognitive ability is the consensus taxonomy of cognitive abilities – Brief
Neuropsychological vs psychometric approaches –conceptual model differences
Mapping CHC model to neuropsychological models
CHC analysis of neuropsychological measures – illustrative examples
Overview of today’s presentation
“In an ever-changing
world, psychological
testing remains the
flagship of applied
psychology”
Embretson, S. E. (1996). The new rules of measurement.
Psychological Assessment, 8 (4), 341-349.
Three things (or major steps) completed
that have resulted in the intelligence
model(s) to be presented today
Things 1 and 2:
Will be covered quickly to provide context and
background for primary content of today – Thing 3
These “things” will be covered in more detail in my Saturday keynote presentation
Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory of cognitive ability is the consensus taxonomy of cognitive abilities – Brief
Neuropsychological vs psychometric approaches –conceptual model differences
Mapping CHC model to neuropsychological models
CHC analysis of neuropsychological measures – illustrative examples
Overview of today’s presentation
The CHC Timeline Project (and detailed information re: CHC
theory/model) can be found at IQ’s Corner blog
www.iqscorner.com
The Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory of cognitive
abilities is the contemporary consensus
psychometric model of the structure of human
intelligence
PMA1
T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9T1 T12T10 T11
PMA2 PMA3 PMA4 …etc
…etc
G1 G2 G3 …etc
T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9T1 T12T10 T11
g
(1a) Spearman’s general Factor model
PMA1
T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9T1 T12T10 T11
PMA2 PMA3 PMA4 …etc
…etc
(1b) Thurston’s Multiple Factor (Primary Mental Abilities) Model
PMA1
T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9T1 T12T10 T11
…etc
…etc
…etc
PMA2 PMA3 PMA4
G2G1
g
Arrows from g to each test
(rectangle) have been
omitted for readability
Stratum I
Stratum II
Stratum III
(1d) Carroll’s Schmid-Leiman Hierarchical Three-Stratum Model(1c) Cattell-Horn Gf-Gc Hierarchical Model
PMA1
T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9T1 T12T10 T11
PMA2 PMA3 PMA4 …etc
…etc
G1 G2 G3
…etc
g ?
(1e) Consensus Cattell-Horn-Carroll Hierarchical Three-Stratum Model
Figure 1: Major stages in the evolution of psychometric theories from Spearman’s g to Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory
Note: Circles represent
latent factors. Squares
represent manifest
measures (tests; T1..).
Single-headed path
arrows designate factor
loadings. Double
headed arrows designate
latent factor correlations
Stratum I
Stratum II
Stratum III
CHC theory has entered the mainstream neuropsychological assessment literature
CHC theory has entered the mainstream neuropsychological assessment literature
A landmark event in understanding the
structure of human cognitive abilities - 1993
THE SCOPE OF CARROLL’S
FACTOR ANALYTIC REVIEW
• Reviewed factor analytic research of the past
50-60 years
• Includes nearly all of the more important and
classic factor analytic investigations
• Started with 1,500 references
• Final pool of 461 data sets that meet specific
criteria
• Reanalyzed all or nearly all of the data sets
• Used exploratory methods in order to “let the
data speak for themselves”
Richard Snow (1993):“John Carroll has done a magnificent thing. He has reviewed and reanalyzed the world’s literature on individual differences in cognitive abilities…no one else could have done it… it defines the taxonomy of cognitive differential psychology for many years to come.”
Burns (1994):Carroll’s book “is simply the finest work of research and scholarship I have read and is destined to be the classic study and reference work on human abilities for decades to come” (p. 35).
John Horn (1998):A “tour de force summary and integration” that is the “definitive foundation for current theory” (p. 58). Horn compared Carroll’s summary to “Mendelyev’s first presentation of a periodic table of elements in chemistry” (p. 58).
Arthur Jensen (2004):“…on my first reading this tome, in 1993, I was reminded of the conductor Hans von Bülow’s exclamation on first reading the full orchestral score of Wagner’s Die Meistersinger, ‘‘It’s impossible, but there it is!’’
“Carroll’s magnum opus thus distills and synthesizes the results of a century of factor analyses of mental tests. It is virtually the grand finale of the era of psychometric description and taxonomy of human cognitive abilities. It is unlikely that his monumental feat will ever be attempted again by anyone, or that it could be much improved on. It will long be the key reference point and a solid foundation for the explanatory era of differential psychology that we now see burgeoning in genetics and the brain sciences” (p. 5).
The verdict is unanimous re: the importance of Carroll’s (1993) work
...most disciplines have a common set of terms and
definitions (i.e., a standard nomenclature) that facilitates
communication among professionals and guards against
misinterpretations. In chemistry, this standard nomenclature
is reflected in the „Table of Periodic Elements‟. Carroll
(1993a) has provided an analogous table for intelligence…..
(Flanagan & McGrew, 1998)
Because the Carroll model is largely consistent with the model originally proposed by Cattell (1971), McGrew (2009) has proposed an integration of the two models which he calls the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (C-H-C) Integration
model….Because of the inclusiveness of this model, it is becoming the standard typology for human ability. It is certainly the culmination of
exploratory factor analysis.
The Science of Intelligence (Doug Detterman, 2010; book manuscript in preparation)
PMA1
T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9T1 T12T10 T11
PMA2 PMA3 PMA4 …etc
…etc
G1 G2 G3
…etc
g ?
(1e) Consensus Cattell-Horn-Carroll Hierarchical Three-Stratum Model
CHC as the consensus psychometric model of
intelligence
“The Cattell–Horn–Carroll (CHC) theory of cognitive abilities is the best validated model of human
cognitive abilities”
[Ackerman, P. L. & Lohman D. F. (2006). Individual differences in cognitive functions. In P. A. Alexander, P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational
psychology, 2nd edition (pp. 139-161). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.]
PMA1
T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9T1 T12T10 T11
PMA2 PMA3 PMA4 …etc
…etc
G1 G2 G3
…etc
g ?
(1e) Consensus Cattell-Horn-Carroll Hierarchical Three-Stratum Model
CHC as the consensus psychometric model of
intelligence
A significant number of Australian intelligence scholars have framed (and/or continue to frame) their research as per the extended Gf-Gc (aka. CHC) model of intelligence. Many have made foundational contributions to building
the model.
N. R. BurnsT. Nettlebeck
L. StankovR. RobertsS. Bowden
PMA1
T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9T1 T12T10 T11
PMA2 PMA3 PMA4 …etc
…etc
G1 G2 G3
…etc
g ?
(1e) Consensus Cattell-Horn-Carroll Hierarchical Three-Stratum Model
CHC as the consensus psychometric model of
intelligence
Importance Of Classification Taxonomies In All Sciences
Classification is arguably one of the most central and generic of all our conceptual exercises…without
classification, there could be no advanced conceptualization, reasoning, language, data analysis, or
for that matter, social science research (K.D. Bailey, 1994).
A specialized science of classification of empirical entities known as taxonomy (Bailey, 1994; Prentky, 1994)
is ubiquitous in all fields of study because it guides our search for information or truth.
(T# = designates different test measures)(PMA# = different “primary mental ability”)
PMA1
T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9T1 T12T10 T11
…etc
…etc
…etc
PMA2 PMA3 PMA4
G2G1
g
Arrows from g to each test(rectangle) have been omitted for readability
Stratum I
Stratum II
Stratum III
Carroll’s Schmid-Leiman Hierarchical Three-Stratum Model
CARROLL’S (1993) THREE-STRATUM
THEORY OF COGNITIVE ABILITIESgGeneral
Intelligence
Fluid
IntelligenceCrystallized
Intelligence
General
Memory &
Learning
Broad
Visual
Perception
Broad
Auditory
Perception
Broad
Retrieval
Ability
Broad
Cognitive
Speediness
Processing
Speed (RT
Decision
Speed)
Ge
ne
ral
(Str
atu
m III
)B
roa
d
(Str
atu
m II)
Na
rro
w
(Str
atu
m I)
69 narrow abilities found in data sets analyzed by Carroll
Gf Gc Gy Gv Gu Gr Gs Gt
-Cognitive abilities vary by degree of generality or breadth
(three strata – general, broad, narrow)
- General intelligence or g exists, and different cognitive
abilities are more related (correlated) with g than others
Gf
Broad
g General
RG
IRQ
RE
RPNarrow
CHC theory classifies abilities according to three levels or strata
RG = Gen Sequential (deductive)
Reasoning
I = Induction
RQ = Quantitative Reasoning
RP = Piagetian Reasoning
RE = Speed of Reasoning
Table of CHC broad and narrow
abilities and their definitions can be
found at www.IAPsych.com
Gf Gq Gsm Gv Ga Gs CDS GrwGc Glr
Flu
id
Inte
llige
nce
Cry
stal
lized
In
telli
gen
ce
Qu
anti
tati
veK
no
wle
dge
Sho
rt-T
erm
Mem
ory
Vis
ual
P
roce
ssin
g
Au
dit
ory
Pro
cess
ing
Lon
g-Te
rmR
etri
eval
Pro
cess
ing
Spee
d
Co
rrec
tD
ecis
ion
Sp
eed
Rea
din
g/W
riti
ng
Ca
ttel
l-H
orn
Carroll and Cattell-Horn Model Comparison
Flu
id
Inte
llige
nce
Cry
stal
lize
d
Inte
llige
nce
Ge
n. M
em
ory
& L
ear
nin
g
Bro
ad V
isu
alP
erc
ep
tio
n
Bro
ad A
ud
ito
ryP
erce
pti
on
Bro
ad R
etri
eval
Ab
ility
Bro
ad C
ogn
itiv
eSp
eed
ine
ss
Dec
/Rea
ctio
nTi
me
/Sp
eed
g
Ca
rro
ll
Gf Gy Gv Gs GtGc GrGu
Contemporary psychometric research has converged on the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory of cognitive abilities as the
consensus working taxonomy of human intelligence
McGrew, K. (2009). Editorial: CHC theory and the human cognitive abilities project: Standing on the shoulders of the giants of psychometric intelligence research, Intelligence, 37, 1-10.
WJ-R (1989) and WJ III (2001) – 7- 9 broad Gf-Gc abilities measured
SB5 (2003) CHC-based revision includes composite scores for 5 broad abilities (Gf, Gc, Gq, Gsm, Gv), via verbal and nonverbal tests.
Kaufman & Kaufman (2004) revise the KABC-II with a dual theoretical model (Luria-Das and CHC) blueprint, but with the CHC model recommended as the primary organizational structure to use.
Elliott (2007) revises the Differential Abilities Scales--II (DAS-II) with a heavy CHC influence.
WISC-IV (2003) and WAIS-IV (2008), although not explicitly based on CHC theory, were implicitly influenced by CHC theory.
CHC theory “has formed the foundationfor most contemporary IQ tests”
(Kaufman, 2009, p. 91)
Table of broad and narrow CHC abilities and definitions is included in yourhandout packet
Also available at: www.iapsych.com/aus1b.pdf
g
Gq KM A3
Gc LD K0 VL LS K1 K2 LA A5 CM OP MY KL
Grw RC SG V RD CZ RS WA EU
Ga PC US UR U3 UM UK UL U1/9 U8 U6 U5 UA/T/U UP
I RG RP RE
Gv Vz SR MV CS SS CF PI LE IL PN IM
Glr M6 MA L0 MM FE FI FF FX FO SP OP FW NA
Gsm MS MW
GsR9 N P
GtR1 R2 R4 R7
McGrew Table of CHC Gf-Gc Cognitive Elements
(© Kevin McGrew 3-25-99; 9-13-10 Rev.)
Cogn
itiv
e O
per
ati
on
sA
cqu
ired
Kn
ow
led
ge
Cogn
itiv
e E
ffic
ien
cy
FA
Gf RQ
Gkn ? ? ? ?
Gh KS ? ? ?
Gk TS ? ? ?
Go OM OS ? ?
Gp P1 P2 P3 P4 P6 P7 P8 A1 A4
Gps R3 WS PT MT
EF/AC ? ? ? ?
Oth
er/n
ew
Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory of cognitive ability is the consensus taxonomy of cognitive abilities – Brief
Neuropsychological vs psychometric approaches –conceptual model differences
Mapping CHC model to neuropsychological models
CHC analysis of neuropsychological measures – illustrative examples
??? Metrics…skeptics….scales and tales• (aka., voodoo psychometrics)
Overview of today’s presentation
Thing 3 – attempt to integrate Thing 1 and
Thing 2 with neuropsychological
assessment models
“It is notable that there is a gap between
neuropsychological measures and evolving
conceptualizations of intelligence. That is, for
as seemingly related as the instruments and
concepts are, they have strikingly different
historical backgrounds.”
(Hoelzle, 2008)
Psychometric vs. neuropsychological
conception/model assessment gap
• NP measures traditionally selected on ability to differentiate between neurological and normal conditions---psychometric
frameworks derived with factor analytic techniques to synthesize theories that were similarly derived
• Singular concept of intelligence (g) has had minimal clinical utility in neuropsychological assessment
Psychometric vs. neuropsychological assessment gap:
Select reasons why (Hoelzle, 2008)
• NP assessment has been traditionally non-theoretical---popular models of
intelligence and cognitive abilities have been derived via statistical procedures
Vertical factor analysis (trait) model
Gf Gc Glr G..GsmGv etcAttn
Psychometric approaches have had primary (but not sole) focus/goal on internal/structural validity within each construct
domain --- Vertical models
Horizontal multiple regression (aptitude/functional/pragmatic) model
Gf Gc Glr G..GsmGv etcAttn
Criterion DVs
TBI ?
Brain Area/function
Neuropsychological approaches have had primary (but not sole) focus/goal on external/predictive (Dx) validity –
Horizontal models
Result has been many NP measures are mixture measures of multiple CHC domain abilities (which abilities and in
what amount [weighting] best predict criterion variables?)
Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory of cognitive ability is the consensus taxonomy of cognitive abilities – Brief
Neuropsychological vs psychometric approaches –conceptual model differences
Mapping CHC model to neuropsychological models
CHC analysis of neuropsychological measures – illustrative examples
??? Metrics…skeptics….scales and tales• (aka., voodoo psychometrics)
Overview of today’s presentation
"If one writes a book on neuropsychological assessment, thou
shall not write a book that is less than 3 inches thick or less than 3
lbs in weight“ (McGrew, August 13, 2010)
The First Commandment of Neuropsychological Assessment
Arm-chair factor analysis of select
neuropsychological assessment model
domains
• Strauss et al. (2006)
• Lezak et al. (2004)
• Rabin et al. (2005)
• Shaghnessy & O‟Connor (2009)
• Miller (2010)
• Flanagan et al. (2010)
Lets look at the
pieces one by one –
blow them up
Strauss et al.
(2006)
Lezak et al.
(2004)
Rabin et al.
(2005)
Shaughnessy
& O'Connor
(2009)
Miller
(2010)
Flanagan
et al. (2010)
Gen int./
cognition
(CHC model)
Concept formation
&
reasoning
(verbal; visual;
arith. reas.)
Intelligence Intellectual Gen intelligence
(CHC model)
Gen intelligence
(CHC model)
Language
Verbal functions/
Language Language Language Language Language
Achievement Math proced. (CF
& reason)
(Calculations)
Verbal functions
(Verbal
Acd. Skills)
Achievement Language
(Rdg & Wrtg)
Academic
achievement
Memory &
Learning
(ach domains)
Arm-chair factor analysis of neuropsych. assessment domains [and CHC construct mapping] (K. McGrew; 8-18-10) [I of 3]
gGf
Gc
GrwGq
Strauss et al.
(2006)
Lezak et al.
(2004)
Rabin et al.
(2005)
Shaughnessy
& O'Connor (2009)
Miller
(2010)
Flanagan
et al. (2010)
Visual-spatial Perception
(Visual)
Construction
Visual spatial
skills
Construction
Visuoperceptual/
Visuospatial/
Visuoconstruction
Visual-spatial Visual-spatial
Perception
(Auditory)
Auditory
Perception
Language
(analysis of
sounds)
Language
(phonological
processing)
Auditory-
Verbal
Memory Memory Verbal Memory
Nonverbal
Memory
Memory Memory &
learning
Memory &
learning
Gv
GsmGlr
Ga
Arm-chair factor analysis of neuropsych. assessment domains [and CHC construct mapping] (K. McGrew; 8-18-10) [I of 3]
Strauss et al.
(2006)
Lezak et al.
(2004)
Rabin et al.
(2005)
Shaughnessy
& O'Connor (2009)
Miller
(2010)
Flanagan
et al. (2010)
Speed &
efficiency *
Speed &
efficiency
Attention
Executive
functions
Orientation &
attention
Executive
functions
& motor perf.
Attention
Executive
functions
Attention
Frontal executive
functions
Attentional
Executive
functions
Attention
Executive
Somatosensory/
olfactory; body
orientation
Motor function
Perception
(tactile;
olfaction)
Exec func
(motor perf.)
Tactile
Perception
Motor Skills
Sensory & motor Sensorimotor Sensory-
motor
GsGsm
GpGpsGoGhGk
AC??
Arm-chair factor analysis of neuropsych. assessment domains [and CHC construct mapping] (K. McGrew; 8-18-10) [I of 3]
Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory of cognitive ability is the consensus taxonomy of cognitive abilities – Brief
Neuropsychological vs psychometric approaches –conceptual model differences
Mapping CHC model to neuropsychological models
CHC analysis of neuropsychological measures – illustrative examples
Overview of today’s presentation
CHC analysis of select commonly used
neuropsychological tests and test batteries
This is preliminary “work in progress”
I am NOT a neuropsychologist – looking for feedback and
expertise to refine
Goal is to demonstrate/model a “mode of thinking &
process” for NP‟s to apply CHC theory to their
assessments
• Time constraints makes it impossible to cover all the major
NP tests and batteries commonly used.
What does the WAIS-IV measure? CHC analysis and beyond
Kevin S. McGrew, PhD.
Educational & School Psychologist
DirectorInstitute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP)
WAIS-IV Tests Gc Gs Gv+Gf Gsm Gc Gs Gv+Gf Gsm
Vocabulary 0.89 0.87
Comprehension 0.83 0.83
Similarities 0.82 0.85
Information 0.79 0.82
Symbol Search 0.79 0.78
Coding 0.79 0.89
Visual Puzzles 0.78 0.68
Block Design 0.79 0.75
Figure Weights 0.43 0.37
Digit Span 0.73 0.83
Letter-Number Sequencing 0.69
Arithmetic 0.08 0.75 0.33 0.48
Matrix Reasoning 0.72 0.75
Cancellation 0.56
Picture Completion 0.61 0.67
Note: CHC factor labels in above table are Kevin McGrew'sCHC interpretation of the factors. In the WAIS-IV TM (Wechsler, 2008) the factors were labeled VerbalComprehension---Gc above; Processing Speed--Gs above; Perceptual Reasoning--Gv+Gfabove; Working Memory--Gsm above
Figure Weights, Letter-Number Sequencing and Cancellation not normed for 70-90 year olds
WAIS-IV TM CFA final model summaries (p. 72-73)
(16-69 yrs of age) (70-90 yrs of age)
Expert consensus broad WAIS-IV subtest
Comparison of Benson, Hulac & Kranzler (in press) and Keith classifications by Flanagan et al. cross-battery
(pers. communication, 10-30-09) CFA of WAIS-IV research group (Flanagan, pers.
communication, 11-2-09)
WAIS-IV Tests Gc Gs Gv Gf Gsm Gc Gs Gv Gf Gsm Gq
Vocabulary X X
Comprehension X X
Similarities X x x
Information X X
Symbol Search X X
Coding X X
Visual Puzzles X X
Block Design X X
Figure Weights X X
Digit Span X X
Letter-Number Sequencing X X
Arithmetic x X x x x
Matrix Reasoning X X
Cancellation X X
Picture Completion X x x
Note. Large bold X indicate salient loadings on CHC factors and agreement in
results between research groups. Keith only analyzed the single grand
correlation matrix in Table 5.1 of WAIS-IV TM
Note. Large X designates single CHC factor
broad classifications. Small x designates cross
CHC factor classifications
Only major difference was secondary Gc loading (small regular font x) by
Benson et al. (in press).
Kevin McGrew completed exploratory analysis of the single grand WAIS-IV subtest correlation matrix reported in Table 5.1 in WAIS-IV TM. Analyses included:
• EFA – Exploratory factor analysis (iterated common-factor model with oblique rotation)
• MDS – Multidimensional scaling analysis (Guttman Radex model)
• CA – Cluster analysis
(the results of these analyses follow on next series of slides)
WAIS-IV Subtests Gc Gs Gv+Gf Gsm Gc Gs Gv+Gf Gsm ?
Vocabulary (VC) 0.91 0.91
Comprehension (CO) 0.80 0.81
Similarities (SI) 0.76 0.80
Information (IN) 0.75 0.74
Symbol Search (SS) 0.85 0.84
Coding (CD) 0.71 0.80
Visual Puzzles (VP) 0.85 0.83
Block Design (BD) 0.73 0.70
Figure Weights (FW) 0.53 0.65
Digit Span (DS) 0.87 0.88
Letter-Number Sequencing (LN) 0.75 0.77
Arithmetic (AR) 0.25 0.43 0.30 0.33
Matrix Reasoning (MR) 0.42 0.48
Cancellation (CA) 0.36 0.45
Picture Completion (PCm) 0.38 0.30 0.28
-Factor loadings < .30 omitted for readability. Loadings in italics are loadings > .24 and < .30
-Shading reflects subtests with salient dual factor loadings
-Subtest abbreviations from Table 5.1 in WAIS-IV technical manual
-CHC factor interpretations by Kevin McGrew
Summary of exploratory factor analysis (iterative principal-axes common factoring with oblique rotation) of WAIS-IV subtest
intercorrelation matrix across all ages in norm sample (Table 5.1 WAIS-IV technical manual, p. 62) – analysis by Kevin McGrew
4-factor solution 5-factor solution
-3 -1 1 3
Dimension-1
-3
-1
1
3
Dim
ensi
on
-2
CA SS
CD
PCM
BD
DS
VP
COVC
SI
FW
AR
LN
MRIN
Visual-spatial processing (Gv)
Processing speed (Gs)
Verbal know & comp (Gc)
Short-term memory /working memory (Gsm)
MDS (Guttman Radex model) of WAIS-IV subtest intercorrelations
Fluid reasoning
(Gf)
WAIS-IV test Cluster Tree (Wards method) of WAIS-IV subtest intercorrelations
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5Distances
BD
SI
DS
MR
VC
AR
SS
VP
IN
CD
LN
FW
CO
CA
PCM
Verbal know & comp (Gc)
Short-term & working memory (Gsm)
Fluid Reasoning (Gf)
Visual-Spatial Proc.(Gv)
Processing Speed (Gs)(rate cognitive abilities)
Level (unspeeded) cognitive abilities
General Intelligence (g) as per WAIS-IV?
So…….what does the WAIS-IV measure?Conclusion and discussion
K. McGrew’s WAIS-IV Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) summary conclusion(Kevin McGrew 11-4-09; 9-14-10 Rev)
Arithmetic (K0)
Arithmetic (MS/MW)
Arithmetic (A3)
Arithmetic (RQ)
GfGq Gc GsmGa GvGlr Gs
g
Visual Puzzles (SR/Vz)
Block Design (SR/Vz)
Pic. Completion (CF)
Symbol Search (P/R9)
Coding (R9)Cancellation (P,R9)
Vocabulary (VL)Comprehension
(LD/K0)Similarities (LD/VL)
Information (K0)
Matrix Reasoning (I)
Figure Weights (RQ)
Digit Span (MS/MW)
Let-Num. Seq. (MW)
Dashed Gq broad ability arrow and oval, which is also deliberately set off to the left side, designates that math achievement abilities are typically found in achievement tests, but have been shown to be measured by some tests in some cognitive/IQ batteries
Dashed multiple rectangles for Arithmetic subtest reflects conclusion that Arithmetic is factorially complex and has been suggested to tap 2-4 different broad Gf-Gc broad domains. This was evident in the preceding analysis and prior Wechsler joint or cross-battery factor analysis studies that have included a greater breadth of ability indicators, particularly Gq. See Wechsler related posts at IQs Corner blog (www.iqscorner.com) for information on these studies and McGrew & Flanagan (1998) and Flanagan, McGrew & Ortiz ( 2000) synthesis of this research.
g
Gq KM A3
Gc LD K0 VL LS K1 K2 LA A5 CM OP MY KL
Grw RC SG V RD CZ RS WA EU
Ga PC US UR U3 UM UK UL U1/9 U8 U6 U5 UA/T/U UP
I RG RP RE
Gv Vz SR MV CS SS CF PI LE IL PN IM
Glr M6 MA L0 MM FE FI FF FX FO SP OP FW NA
Gsm MS MW
GsR9 N P
GtR1 R2 R4 R7
WAIS-IV CHC Analysis Summary (© K. McGrew 9-13-10 Rev.)C
ogn
itiv
e O
per
ati
on
sA
cqu
ired
Kn
ow
led
ge
Cogn
itiv
e E
ffic
ien
cy
FA
Gf RQ
Gkn ? ? ? ?
Gh KS ? ? ?
Gk TS ? ? ?
Go OM OS ? ?
Gp P1 P2 P3 P4 P6 P7 P8 A1 A4
Gps R3 WS PT MT ? ? ? ? ?
EF/AC ? ? ? ?
Oth
er/n
ew
Two (of many) advantages of CHC-based analysis IQ test batteries
Understanding and comparing IQ scores across editions within the same IQ battery
Understanding and comparing IQ scores between different IQ batteries
IQ test CHC DNA Fingerprints
Gc Gv Gs Gq Gsm Gf Glr Ga
1949 50 30 10 5 5 0 0 0
1974 50 30 10 5 5 0 0 0
1991 50 30 10 5 5 0 0 0
2003 30 15 15 0 20 20 0 0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
% C
HC
co
ntr
ibu
tio
n t
o F
S IQ
WISCWISC-RWISC-IIIWISC-IV
The evolution of the CHC ability content of the various WISC FS IQ scores© Institute for Applied Psychometrics, Kevin McGrew, 2-5-2010
Gf Gq Gc Glr Ga Gv Gsm Gs Grw Gk
WJ-III/BAT-III 18.0% 0.0% 20.0% 17.0% 12.0% 10.0% 13.0% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0%
WAIS-IV 10.0% 5.0% 30.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 15.0% 20.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
% C
HC
bro
ad
ab
ilit
ies r
ep
res
en
ted
b
y W
AIS
-IV
an
d W
J I
II IQ
s
co
re
Broad CHC cognitive
ability domains
Gc = comprehension-knowledge
Gv = visual-spatial processing
Gs = processing speed
Ga = auditory processing
Gsm = Short-term memory
Gf = fluid reasoning
Glr = long-term storage/retrieval
Gq = quantitative knowledge
Grw = reading/writing
Gk =domain specific knowledge
Comparing global IQ score compositions from two different IQ test
batteries (WAIS-IV & WJ III)
Gc Gv Gs Ga Gsm Gf Glr Gq
WJ-R/BAT-R 14.3% 14.3% 14.3% 14.3% 14.3% 14.3% 14.3% 0.0%
TONI-2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
% C
HC
bro
ad
ab
ilit
ies
re
pre
se
nte
d in
IQ
sc
ore
IQ Test CHC DNA Fingerprint comparison of proportional coverage
of broad CHC ability domains for BAT-R and TONI-2
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP) llc Kevin McGrew, 2-6-2010
Broad CHC cognitive
ability domains
Gc = comprehension-knowledge
Gv = visual-spatial processing
Gs = processing speed
Ga = auditory processing
Gsm = Short-term memory
Gf = fluid reasoning
Glr = long-term storage/retrieval
Gq = quantitative knowledge
Comparing IQ‟s from special purpose and comprehensive test batteries
CHC analysis of select commonly used
neuropsychological tests and test batteries
This is preliminary “work in progress”
I am NOT a neuropsychologist – looking for feedback and
expertise to refine
Goal is to demonstrate/model a “mode of thinking &
process” for NP‟s to apply CHC theory to their
assessments
• Time constraints makes it impossible to cover all the major
NP tests and batteries commonly used.
Trail Making Tests: CHC task-analysis and
CHC-grounded follow-up testing example
• Cognitive processing speed (Gs)
• Psychomotor (fine) speed, dexterity (Gps)
• Visual scanning, visual search (Gv-SS)
• Attention-sustained visual, attention-shifting (AC)
• EF- executive control, cognitive flexibility, inhibition-disinhibition ( )
TMT: Common neuropsychological interpretations/hypothesis viewed with
CHC lens (First cut CHC thoughts)
Hoelzle(2008) has done (albeit on a smaller scale) for neuropsychological datasets what Carroll (1993) did in his seminal EFA of cognitive ability datasets
This served as the starting point for the current NP-CHC linkage work
But, there are some caveats re: Hoelzel analyses due to constraints of secondary data analysis (I went
beyond and “tweaked” his conclusions)
• Insufficient markers of some CHC domains – factors could not
emerge (results in some amalgam factors)
• Lack of indicators of CHC domains of Gp, Gps, Go, Gh, Gk
(Hoelzle, 2008)
(Hoelzle, 2008)
77 separate EFA secondary analysis reported !!!!!!
GsmGf Gs
Hoelzle (2008) apriori CHC task analysis hypotheses: TMT (Trail Making Test) example
Hoelzle (2008) EFA secondary analysis summary of five datasets meeting criteria that included TMT test(s)
Gs Glr
Gs Glr
Hoelzle (2008) EFA secondary analysis summaries of
datasets that included TMT test(s)
Gsm,Ga?GsGf
GlrGf,Gv,
Gs
Hoelzle (2008) EFA secondary analysis
summaries of datasets that included TMT test(s)
Gh,Gv/Gf,
Gs ? Gc Gf? Gps
Hoelzle (2008) EFA secondary analysis
summaries of datasets that included TMT test(s)
Gs
Hoelzle (2008) empirical EFA-based CHC conclusions: TMT test
Primarily Gs
Test: Trail Making Test(s) (TMT) NP construct(s): Attention/Exec. Function.
Primary CHC interpretation
Broad CHC domain(s) and brief definition CHC (broad+narrow) task analysis & hypotheses
Gs: Processing speedThe ability to automatically and fluently perform relatively easy or over-learned elementary cognitive tasks, especially when high mental efficiency (i.e., attention and focused concentration) is required.
Gs: Perceputal Speed--Memory (Pm)—the ability to perform visual perceptual speed tasks that place significant demands on immediate short-term or working memory (Gsm)
• Attention-sustained-visual, attention-shifting (AC)• Psychomotor (fine) speed, dexterity(Gps) • Visual scanning, visual search (Gv-SS)• EF- executive control, cognitive flexibility, inhibition-disinhibition ( )
Secondary CHC considerations
• Gps: The ability to rapidly and fluently perform physical body motor movements (e.g., movement of fingers, hands, legs) largely independent of cognitive control.• Gv-SS (Spatial Scanning): Ability to quickly and accurately survey (visually explore) a wide or complicated spatial field or pattern and identify a particular configuration (path) through the visual field. Usually requires visually following the indicated route or path through the visual field.
Possible (select) follow-up measures of CHC abilities measured
Gs Wech. Symbol Search, Coding, Cancellation; WJ III Visual Matching, Cross Out, Pair Cancellation
Gv-SS D-KEFS TMT (Condition 1); KABC-II Rover; WJ III Planning (No AUS); NEPSY Route Finding; UNIT Mazes
EF/AC TEA-CH-Creature Counting; D-KEFS Design Fluency (Condition 3); WJ III Pair Cancellation; Wech. Cancellation
Gps Finger Tapping Test (FTT); Grooved Pegboard; Purdue Pegboard
Neuropsych. Test-CHC Analysis Summary: Trail Making Test( ©Institute for Applied Psychometrics, Kevin McGrew, 9-14-10)
g
Gq KM A3
Gc LD K0 VL LS K1 K2 LA A5 CM OP MY KL
Grw RC SG V RD CZ RS WA EU
Ga PC US UR U3 UM UK UL U1/9 U8 U6 U5 UA/T/U UP
I RG RP RE
Gv Vz SR MV CS SS CF PI LE IL PN IM
Glr M6 MA L0 MM FE FI FF FX FO SP OP FW NA
Gsm MS MW
GsR9 N P
GtR1 R2 R4 R7
Trail Making Test (TMT) CHC Analysis Summary (© K. McGrew 9-13-10 Rev.)C
ogn
itiv
e O
per
ati
on
sA
cqu
ired
Kn
ow
led
ge
Cogn
itiv
e E
ffic
ien
cy
FA
Gf RQ
Gkn
Gh KS
Gk TS
Go OM OS
Gp P1 P2 P3 P4 P6 P7 P8 A1 A4
Gps R3 WS PT MT
EF/AC ? ? ? ?
Oth
er/n
ew
?
Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test (ROCF): CHC task-analysis
and possible CHC-grounded follow-up testing example
• Planning, organizational skills, and prob. solving strategies (EF, Gf, Gsm-MW)
• Visual memory (Gv-MV)
• Visual perceptual abilities (Gv-CS,MV,SS)
• Visual-spatial/constructional abilities (Gv-SR,Vz,IM; Gp)
•Motor ability (Gp)
• Episodic memory function (Glr-M6, MA)
• Incidental (vs intentional) learning (Glr-L1)
• Copy component (Gv, Gp)
• Recall (immediate, delayed) component (Glr-M6)
[Not including the “recognition memory” procedure in this presenation]
ROCF: Common neuropsychological interpretations/hypothesis viewed via
CHC lens: (First cut CHC thoughts)
Test: Rey-Osterrieth Complex Fig. Test (ROCF) (1/2)Copy component
NP construct(s): Memory & Learning (Visual, Vis-Spatial )/ Motor
Primary CHC interpretation
Broad CHC domain(s) and brief definition CHC (broad+narrow) task-analysis & hypotheses
Gv: Visual-spatial processingThe ability to generate, store, retrieve, and transform visual images and sensations.
Gv: Spatial Relations (SR)—Ability to rapidly perceive and manipulate (mental rotation, transformations, reflection, etc.) visual patterns or to maintain orientation with respect to objects in space.
Gp: Psychomotor abilitiesThe ability to perform physical body motor movements (e.g., movement of fingers, hands, legs) with precision, coordination, or strength.
Gp: Finger Dexterity (P2)—The ability to make precisely coordinated movements of the fingers (with or without themanipulation of objects).
Secondary CHC considerations
Gv-MV: Ability to form and store a mental representation or image of a visual shape or configuration (typically during a brief studyperiod), over at least a few seconds, and then recognize or recall it later (during the test phase).
Possible (select) follow-up measures of CHC abilities measured
Gv-SR DAS-II Patt. Construct; KABC-II Triangles; Leiter-R Fig. Rotation; SB5 Nonverbal Vis-Spat. Proc; UNIT Cube Design; Wech Block Design; WJ III Spatial Relations, Block Rotation
Gv-MV Benton Vis. Ret. Test (A,B,D;M); DAS-II Rec. of Designs, Recog. of Pict.; Leiter-R Forward Mem., Immediate Recog.; NEPSY Imit. Hand Positions; UNIT Spatial Mem., Symbolic Mem.; WJ III Pict. Recog.; WMS-III/IV Vis. Reprod. I/II; WRAML2 Design Mem., Pict. Mem.
Gp Bender Visual-Motor Gestalt II (BG-II) ; BO Fine Motor; DWSMB Construction (Cross & Clock); Full Range Test of Visual-Motor Integration (FRTVMI); NEPSY Design Copying; Test of Visual Motor Integration (VMI);
Neuropsych. Test-CHC Analysis Summary: ROCF Test( ©Institute for Applied Psychometrics, Kevin McGrew, 9-14-10)
Test: Rey-Osterrieth Complex Fig. Test (ROCF) (2/2)Recall component
NP construct(s): Memory & Learning (Visual/Vis-spatial)
Primary CHC interpretation
Broad CHC domain(s) and brief definition CHC (broad+narrow) task-analysis & hypotheses
Gv: Visual-spatial processingThe ability to generate, store, retrieve, and transform visual images and sensations.
Gv: Visual Memory (MV)—Ability to form and store a mental representation or image of a visual shape or configuration (typically during a brief study period), over at least a few seconds, and then recognize or recall it later (test phase).
Glr: Long-term storage and retrievalThe ability to store and consolidate new information in long-term memory and later fluently retrieve the stored information through association.
Glr: Free Recall Memory (M6)—Ability to recall (without associations) as many unrelated items as possible, in any order, after a large collection of items is presented. Requires the ability to encode a “superspan collection of material” that cannot be kept active in short-term or working memory.
Secondary CHC considerations
Gsm-MW: Ability to temporarily store and perform a set of cognitive operations on information that requires divided attention and the management of the limited capacity resources of Gsm. Is largely recognized to be the mind’s “scratchpad” and consists of up to four subcomponents (phonological or articulatory loop, visuospatial scratchpad, central,episodic buffer.).
Possible (select) follow-up measures of CHC abilities measured
Glr: M6 ??[Most all CHC classified M6 tests are verbal free recall tests..not visual]
Gv-MV [See ROCF Copy component summary table]
Gp [See ROCF Copy component summary table]
Gsm-MW DAS-II Rec. of Digits-Back, Rec. of Seq. Order; NEPSY Knock & Tap; Wech/WMS-III/IV Let-Num. Seq; WJ III Aud. Wrk. Mem; WJ III Num. Rev; WRAML2 Sym. Wrk. Mem, Verbal Wrk. Mem. [??Note – not aware of commercial visual working memory tests]
Neuropsych. Test-CHC Analysis Summary: ROCF Test( ©Institute for Applied Psychometrics, Kevin McGrew, 9-14-10)
g
Gq KM A3
Gc LD K0 VL LS K1 K2 LA A5 CM OP MY KL
Grw RC SG V RD CZ RS WA EU
Ga PC US UR U3 UM UK UL U1/9 U8 U6 U5 UA/T/U UP
I RG RP RE
Gv Vz SR MV CS SS CF PI LE IL PN IM
Glr M6 MA L0 MM FE FI FF FX FO SP OP FW NA
Gsm MS MW
GsR9 N P
GtR1 R2 R4 R7
ROCF CHC Analysis Summary ( © K. McGrew 9-13-10 Rev.)C
ogn
itiv
e O
per
ati
on
sA
cqu
ired
Kn
ow
led
ge
Cogn
itiv
e E
ffic
ien
cy
FA
Gf RQ
Gkn ? ? ? ?
Gh KS ? ? ?
Gk TS ? ? ?
Go OM OS ? ?
Gp P1 P2 P3 P4 P6 P7 P8 A1 A4
Gps R3 WS PT MT ? ? ? ? ?
EF/AC ? ? ? ?
Oth
er/n
ew
CHC analysis of commonly used
neuropsychological test batteries:
Wechsler Memory Scales example
Battery: Wechsler Memory Scales—III/IV (1 of 3)Verb/Auditory tests
NP construct(s): Memory & Learning (Verbal-Auditory)
Primary CHC interpretation
Broad CHC domain(s) and brief definition Individual test hypothesized narrow abilities(tests at bottom are factorially complex measures)
Glr: Long-term storage and retrievalThe ability to store and consolidate new information in long-term memory and later fluently retrieve the stored information (e.g., concepts, ideas, items, names) through association. Memory consolidation & retrieval can be measured in terms of information stored for minutes, hours, weeks, or longer.
• Logical Memory I & II (MM: Meaningful Memory)• Verbal Paired Associates I & II (MA: Associative Memory)• Word Lists I & II (M6: Free Recall Memory)
• Family Pictures II (Gv-MV & Glr-MM: Meaningful Memory)
Hypothesized narrow ability definitions
• MM: Ability to retain & recall information (set of items or ideas) when there is a meaningful relation between the bits of info., the information comprises a meaningful story or connected discourse, or the information relates to existing contents of memory.• MA: Ability to recall one part of a previously learned but unrelated pair of items (that may or may not be meaningfully linked) when the other part is presented (e.g., paired-associative learning).• M6: Ability to recall (without associations) as many unrelated items as possible, in any order, after a large collection of items ispresented (each item presented singly). Requires the ability to encode a “superspan collection of material” (Carroll, 1993, p. 277) that cannot be kept active in short-term or working memory.
Possible (select) follow-up measures of CHC abilities measured
MM WRAML2 Story Memory; WJ III Story Recall
MA KABC-II Atlantis, Rebus; WJ III Vis-Aud. Lrng, Mem. For Names; WRAML2 Sound Symbol
M6 California Verbal Learning Test-II (CVLT-II); Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT); WRAML2 Verbal Learning, Verbal Learning Recognition
Neuropsych. Test Battery -CHC Analysis Summary: WMS-III/IV Test( ©Institute for Applied Psychometrics, Kevin McGrew, 9-14-10)
Battery: Wechsler Memory Scales—III /IV (2 of 3)Visual tests
NP construct(s): Memory & Learning (Visual)
Primary CHC interpretation
Broad CHC domain(s) and brief definition Individual test hypothesized narrow abilities(tests at bottom are factorially complex measures)
Gv: Visual-spatial processingThe ability to generate, store, retrieve, and transform visual images and sensations. Gv abilities are typically measured by tasks (viz., figural or geometric stimuli) that require the perception and transformation of visual shapes, forms, images, and/or tasks that require maintaining spatial orientation with regard to objects that may change or move through space.
• Visual Reproduction I/II (MV: Visual Memory)• Faces I/II (MV: Visual Memory)• Family Pictures I (MV: Visual Memory)
• Family Pictures II (Gv-MV & Glr-MM: Meaningful Memory)
Hypothesized narrow ability definitions
• MV: Ability to form and store a mental representation or image of a visual shape or configuration (typically during a brief study period), over at least a few seconds, and then recognize or recall it later (during the test phase).
Possible (select) follow-up measures of CHC abilities measured
MV Benton Visual Retention Test (A,B,D;M); DAS-II Recall of Designs, Recognition of Pictures; Leiter-R Forward Memory, Immediate Recognition; NEPSY Imitating Hand Positions; Rey-Osterieth Complex Figure Test (ROCF); UNIT Spatial Memory, Symbolic Memory; WJ III Picture Recognition; WMS-III/IV? Visual Reproduction I/II; WRAML2 Design Memory, Picture Memory
MM WRAML2 Story Memory; WJ III Story Recall
Neuropsych. Test Battery -CHC Analysis Summary: WMS-III/IV Test( ©Institute for Applied Psychometrics, Kevin McGrew, 9-14-10)
Battery: Wechsler Memory Scales—III /IV (3 of 3)Working memory tests
NP construct(s): Memory & Learning (Short-term/Working Memory)
Primary CHC interpretation
Broad CHC domain(s) and brief definition Individual test hypothesized narrow abilities(tests at bottom are factorially complex measures)
Gsm: Short-term memoryThe ability to apprehend and maintain awareness of a limited number of elements of info. in the immediate situation. A limited-capacity system that loses info. quickly through the decay of memory traces, unless an individual activates other cog. resources to maintain the info. in immediate awareness.
• Letter-Number Sequencing (MW: Working Memory)
• Digit Span (MS: Memory Span; MW: Working Memory)• Spatial Span (MV: Visual Memory; MW: Working Memory)
Hypothesized narrow ability definitions
•MS: Ability to attend to, register, and immediately recall (after only one presentation) temporally ordered elements and then reproduce the series of elements in correct order. •MV: Ability to form and store a mental representation or image of a visual shape or configuration (typically during a brief study period), over at least a few seconds, and then recognize or recall it later (during the test phase).•MW: Ability to temporarily store and perform a set of cognitive operations on information that requires divided attention and the management of the limited capacity resources of Gsm. Is largely recognized to be the mind’s “scratchpad” and consists of up to four subcomponents (phonological or articulatory loop, visuospatial scratchpad, central,episodic buffer.).
Possible (select) follow-up measures of CHC abilities measured
MS DAS-II Rec. of Digits-Frwd; KABC-II Num. Recall; NEPSY Rep. of Nonsense Words, Sent. Rep; SB5 Nonverbal Wrk. Mem., Verbal Wrk. Mem.; WECH Digit Span (Forward); WJ III Mem. for Words, Mem. for Sent.; WRAML2 Num. Let., Sent. Mem.
MW DAS-II Rec. of Digits-Back, Rec. of Seq. Order; NEPSY Knock & Tap; Wech/WMS-III/IV Let-Num. Seq; WJ III Aud. Wrk. Mem; WJ III Num. Rev; WRAML2 Sym. Wrk. Mem, Verbal Wrk. Mem.
MV Benton Vis. Ret. Test (A,B,D;M); DAS-II Rec. of Designs, Recog. of Pict.; Leiter-R Forward Mem., Immediate Recog.; NEPSYImit. Hand Positions; Rey-Osterieth Complex Figure Test (recall) (ROCF); UNIT Spatial Mem., Symbolic Mem.; WJ III Pict. Recog.; WMS-III/IV Vis. Reprod. I/II; WRAML2 Design Mem., Pict. Mem.
Neuropsych. Test Battery -CHC Analysis Summary: WMS-III/IV Test( ©Institute for Applied Psychometrics, Kevin McGrew, 9-14-10)
g
Gq KM A3
Gc LD K0 VL LS K1 K2 LA A5 CM OP MY KL
Grw RC SG V RD CZ RS WA EU
Ga PC US UR U3 UM UK UL U1/9 U8 U6 U5 UA/T/U UP
I RG RP RE
Gv Vz SR MV CS SS CF PI LE IL PN IM
Glr M6 MA L0 MM FE FI FF FX FO SP OP FW NA
Gsm MS MW
GsR9 N P
GtR1 R2 R4 R7
Cogn
itiv
e O
per
ati
on
sA
cqu
ired
Kn
ow
led
ge
Cogn
itiv
e E
ffic
ien
cy
FA
Gf RQ
Gkn ? ? ? ?
Gh KS ? ? ?
Gk TS ? ? ?
Go OM OS ? ?
Gp P1 P2 P3 P4 P6 P7 P8 A1 A4
Gps R3 WS PT MT
EF/AC ? ? ? ?
Oth
er/n
ew
WMS-III/IV CHC Analysis Summary (K. McGrew 9-13-10 Rev.)
This is research/work in progress: Suggested research
that needs to be explored and integrated. Go from here
to……………..
The WJ III (AUS Adaptation) is an ideal battery for following up NP assessment results when the focus is on:
(a) disentangling the different mixtures of multiple CHC abilities commonly found in NP tests or,
(b) conducting more in-depth focused (confirmatory?) assessment of NP identified CHC abilities of concern
Next slide shows summary of broad and narrow CHC abilities measured by the WJ III
Note: Conflict of interest disclosure
g
Gq KM A3
Gc LD K0 VL LS K1 K2 LA A5 CM OP MY KL
Grw RC SG V RD CZ RS WA EU
Ga PC US UR U3 UM UK UL U1/9 U8 U6 U5 UA/T/U UP
I RG RP RE
Gv Vz SR MV CS SS CF PI LE IL PN IM
Glr M6 MA L0 MM FE FI FF FX FO SP OP FW NA
Gsm MS MW
GsR9 N P
GtR1 R2 R4 R7
Cogn
itiv
e O
per
ati
on
sA
cqu
ired
Kn
ow
led
ge
Cogn
itiv
e E
ffic
ien
cy
FA
Gf RQ
Gkn ? ? ? ?
Gh KS ? ? ?
Gk TS ? ? ?
Go OM OS ? ?
Gp P1 P2 P3 P4 P6 P7 P8 A1 A4
Gps R3 WS PT MT
EF/AC ? ? ? ?
Oth
er/n
ew
WJ III (Stnd+Ext Batteries) CHC Analysis Summary (K. McGrew 9-13-10 Rev.)
[Note. g (GIA) score does not include tests from Gq or Grw]
“ Tests do not think for themselves, nor do they directly communicate with patients. Like a stethoscope, a blood pressure gauge, or an MRI scan, a psychological test is a dumb tool, and the worth of the tool cannot be separated from the sophistication of the clinician who draws inferences from it and then communicates with patients and professionals”
Meyer et al. (2001). Psychological testing and psychological assessment. American Psychologist, February
“ If you give a monkey a stradivarius violin and you get bad music……..you don’t
blame the violin”
McGrew (circa 1986)
Content/stimulus dimension
This is NOT a model of human functioning – it is a “working” heuristic of Kevin McGrew’s current hypothesized thinking (iteration 3?) regarding the important dimensions that may
be important in the development and interpretation of measures of human abilities …………. (not a Guilford SOI model where all cells are believed to exist)
Cognitive knowledge domains/systems
Cognitive operations
Cognitive control
Cognitive efficiency
Sensory functions
Motor functions
Ab
ilty
do
mai
n d
imen
sio
n
Typ
e I
Pro
cess
ing
Typ
e II
Pro
cess
ing
Note: CHC taxonomy is embedded in the ability domain dimension (see prior slides)
?: Is the low-how cog. complexity continuum simply a continuous representation
of the Type 1/I processing distinction ?
Iteration 2:
Hypothesized CHC-
based
Intelligence model
Plus mapping of
common neuropsych.
measurement domains
to hypothesized model
Kevin McGrew
8-18-2010
Lets look at the
pieces one by one –
blow them up
Cognitive Content/Stimulus Dimensions
Cog. Knowledge
Domains/SystemsLanguage Numerical - Visual- Somata- Olfactory
(aud-verb) Quantitative Figural sensory
General Acquired
Knowledge
Gc
Language/Verbal
Functions
Grw Ach (lang-based)
Gq
Ach (math
based)
(Gk, Gh, Go…?) ? ? ?
Domain-specific
Knowledge
Gkn ? ? ? ? ?
Cognitive Content/Stimulus Dimensions
Cognitive Operations Language
(aud-verb)
Numerical -
Quantitative
Visual-
Figural
Somata-
sensory
Olfactory
Complex Reasoning
Gf (Lang+lng-based
complex Work. Mem.)
Concept
formation &
reasoning
(verbal)
Complex Reasoning
Gf (Quantitative)
Concept
formation &
reasoning
(quant/arith.)
Complex Reasoning
Gf (Visual-figural)
Concept
formation &
reasoning
(visual)
[Note. Empirical support for this three-way Gf breakdown will be presented in Saturday’s keynote address (Beyond CHC) ]
Cognitive Content/Stimulus Dimensions
Cognitive Operations
(continued)
Language
(auditory-
verbal)
Numerical -
Quantitative
Visual-
Figural
Somata-
Sensory
Olfactory
Long-term storage
& retrieval (Glr)
Memory &
Learning
Memory &
Learning
Memory &
Learning ? ?
Processing
(Auditory) (Ga)
Auditory
Perception
Auditory-Verbal
Lang
(Phonological
processing)
Processing
(Visual-spatial) (Gv)
Visual-spatial
Construction?
Cognitive Content/Stimulus Dimensions
Cognitive Efficiency
Language
(auditory-
verbal)
Numerical -
Quantitative
Visual-
Figural
Somata-
sensory
Olfactory
Short-term/Working
Memory (Gsm)
Memory Memory Memory ? ?
Processing Speed (Gs) • Speed &
efficiency?
• Executive
function?
• Attention?
• Speed &
efficiency?
• Executive
function?
• Attention?
• Speed &
efficiency?
• Executive
function?
• Attention?
? ?
Gs(Gc)
Gs(Grw)
Gs(Gq)
Gs(Gv)
Cognitive Control
Executive Functions Executive
function
Executive
function
Executive
function ? ?
Controlled Executive
Attention Attention Attention Attention
? ?
Cognitive Content/Stimulus Dimensions
Sensory Language
(auditory-
verbal)
Numerical -
Quantitative
Visual-
Figural
Somata-
Sensory
Olfactory
Vision
Visual
acuity, etc.
Hearing
Auditory
acuity, etc.
Tactile (Gh)
Tactile
perception
Kinesthetic (Gk)
Body
orientation
Olfactory - (Go) Olfaction
Motor
Psychomotor Ablilities (Gp)
Psychomotor Speed (Gps)Motor functions (including speed)-Expressive across domains