September 2010 "Reflections on 35 Years of Intelligence Testing"

  • View
    214

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Text of September 2010 "Reflections on 35 Years of Intelligence Testing"

  • Intelligent Insights on Intelligence Tests:

    What Ive Learned from 35 Years of IQ

    Testing, Development and Research

    Kevin S. McGrew, PhD

    Woodcock-Muoz Foundation (WMF)

    University of Minnesota (Ed. Psych.)

  • Handout information

    A select set of slides presented today can be

    downloaded (pdf format) @

    www.iapsych.com/aus34.pdf

  • Stay informed

  • Conflict of interest disclosure for Kevin McGrew

    A portion of the research summarized in

    the project described in this presentation

    has been based on the WJ-R and WJ III. has been based on the WJ-R and WJ III.

    Dr. Kevin McGrew has a financial interest

    in the WJ III (co-author of the WJ III

    Battery)

  • An old man, a boy and a donkey were going to town. The

    boy rode on the donkey and the old man walked. As they

    went along they passed some people who remarked it was

    a shame the old man was walking and the boy was riding.

    The man and boy thought maybe the critics were right, so

    My Presentation PhilosophyMy Presentation Philosophy

    The man and boy thought maybe the critics were right, so

    they changed positions. Later, they passed some people

    that remarked, "What a shame, he makes that little boy

    walk."

    They then decided they both would walk! Soon they

    passed some more people who thought they were stupid

    to walk when they had a decent donkey to ride.

    So, they both rode the donkey.

  • Now they passed some people that shamed them by

    saying how awful to put such a load on a poor donkey. The

    boy and man said they were probably right, so they

    decided to carry the donkey.

    My Presentation PhilosophyMy Presentation Philosophy

    As they crossed the bridge, they lost their grip on the

    animal and he fell into the river and drowned.

    The moral of the story?

    If you try to please everyone, you might as well kiss your

    ass good-bye.

  • There is only one proven law in psychology

    The law of individual differences

  • In search of the holy grail of human intelligence

  • In search of the holy grail of human intelligence:

    A taxonomy of human cognitive ability elements

  • The Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory of cognitive

    abilities is the contemporary consensus

    psychometric model of the structure of human

    intelligence

    The CHC Timeline Project (and detailed information re: CHC

    theory/model) can be found at IQs Corner blog

    www.iqscorner.com

  • g

    T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9T1 T12T10 T11

    Spearmans general factor model

    (T# = designates different test measures)

  • T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9T1 T12T10 T11

    g

    (1a) Spearmans general Factor model

    PMA1

    T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9T1 T12T10 T11

    PMA2 PMA3 PMA4 etc

    etc

    (1b) Thurstons Multiple Factor (Primary Mental Abilities) Model

    etcG2G1

    g

    Arrows from g to each test

    (rectangle) have been

    omitted for readability

    Stratum II

    Stratum III

    G1 G2 G3 etc

    PMA1

    T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9T1 T12T10 T11

    etc

    etc

    PMA2 PMA3 PMA4Stratum I

    (1d) Carrolls Schmid-Leiman Hierarchical Three-Stratum Model

    PMA1

    T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9T1 T12T10 T11

    PMA2 PMA3 PMA4 etc

    etc

    (1c) Cattell-Horn Gf-Gc Hierarchical Model

    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

    PMA1

    T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9T1 T12T10 T11

    PMA2 PMA3 PMA4 etc

    etc

    G1 G2 G3etc

    g ?

    (1e) Consensus Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC)Hierarchical Three-Stratum Model

    Stratum I

    Stratum II

    Stratum III

  • PMA1 PMA2 PMA3 PMA4etc

    G1 G2 G3

    etc

    g ?

    Stratum I

    Stratum II

    Stratum III

    Consensus Cattell-Horn-Carroll Hierarchical Three-Stratum Model

    T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9T1 T12T10 T11etc

    (T# = designates different test measures)

    (PMA# = different primary mental ability)

  • 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.

  • Because the Carroll model is largely consistent with the model originally

    proposed by Cattell (1971), McGrew (2009) has proposed an integration of

    PMA1

    T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9T1 T12T10 T11

    PMA2 PMA3 PMA4 etc

    etc

    G1 G2 G3etc

    g ?

    (1e) Consensus Cattell-Horn-Carroll Hierarchical Three-Stratum Model

    CHC as the consensus

    psychometric model of

    intelligence

    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)

  • The CattellHornCarroll (CHC) theory of cognitive

    PMA1

    T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9T1 T12T10 T11

    PMA2 PMA3 PMA4 etc

    etc

    G1 G2 G3etc

    g ?

    (1e) Consensus Cattell-Horn-Carroll Hierarchical Three-Stratum Model

    CHC as the consensus

    psychometric model of

    intelligence

    The CattellHornCarroll (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.]

  • 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.

    PMA1

    T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9T1 T12T10 T11

    PMA2 PMA3 PMA4 etc

    etc

    G1 G2 G3etc

    g ?

    (1e) Consensus Cattell-Horn-Carroll Hierarchical Three-Stratum Model

    CHC as the consensus

    psychometric model of

    intelligence

    per the extended Gf-Gc (aka. CHC) model of intelligence.

    Many have made foundational contributions to building

    the model.

    N. R. Burns

    T. Nettlebeck

    L. Stankov

    R. Roberts

    S. Bowden

  • Importance Of Classification

    Taxonomies In All Sciences

    Classification is arguably one of the most central and

    generic of all our conceptual exerciseswithout

    classification, there could be no advanced

    conceptualization, reasoning, language, data analysis, or

    for that matter, social science research (K.D. Bailey, 1994).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.

  • Pre-Copernican view

    of the universe was

    geocenteric

    Post-Copernican view

    of the universe was

    heliocentric

  • Test Interpretation Individual Differences

    Research (e.g., ATI)

    Designing

    New Tests

    Outcomes

    Research

    Evaluating

    Existing Tests

    Communication

    (standard nomenclature)

    This is a Pre-Copernican Wechsler-Centric Model

    of Intelligence Testing Practice

  • Test Interpretation Individual Differences

    Research (e.g., ATI)

    Designing

    New TestsOutcomes

    Research

    g

    Gf

    Gc

    Gv

    Gsm

    GlrGs

    Ga

    Evaluating

    Existing Tests

    Communication

    (standard nomenclature)

    This is a Post-Copernican Theory-Centric Model

    of Intelligence Testing Practice

    Gsm

  • We now know that the world is not flat---and, we know have an

    empirically based workable taxonomic map of the terrain of

    cognitive abilities.

    We are now charting a more accurate course in our search for

    the holy grail of COG-ACH abilities research

  • The impact of the CHC taxonomy has resulted in

    rapid developments in intelligence test

    development and research

    Some examples

  • SB5 (Roid, 2003) CHC-based revision includes composite scores for 5 broad

    abilities (Gf, Gc, Gq, Gsm, Gv), via verbal and nonverbal tests.

    Horn, Carroll, Woodcock and McGrew served as original consultants

    CHC theory has formed the foundation

    for most contemporary IQ tests (Kaufman,

    2009, p. 91)

    Horn, Carroll, Woodcock and McGrew served as original consultants

    to SB5 revision team.

    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

    th