Evolution of psychometric IQ theories from Spearman g to CHC: With special analysis of AAIDD ID/MR 2010 manaul

Kevin S. McGrew, PhD.

Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP) – Director[www.iapsych.com]

The evolution of psychometric theories of intelligence from Spearman’s g to contemporary CHC: With Special analysis

and commentary on the 2010 AAIDD ID/MR definition—intelligence theory gap

Conflict of interest disclosure: Kevin McGrew is a co-author of (and thus has a financial interest in) the WJ III Battery, a battery of cognitive and achievement tests mentioned in this presentation. This presentation reflects the views of Kevin McGrew and do not necessarily reflect the views of the other WJ III authors or the publisher of the battery.

The current set of slides have been adapted and revised from three primary sources. Viewers of this presentation can find additional background information and detail by consulting the following sources.

The IAP CHC Timeline Project @ http://tinyurl.com/ykz4wwm

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.

McGrew, K. S. (2005). The Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory of cognitive abilities: Past, present and future. In D. Flanagan, & Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues-Second Edition (p.136-202). New York: Guilford Press

(both manuscripts can be accessed @ http://tinyurl.com/ykzesml

http://tinyurl.com/ykz4wwm

http://tinyurl.com/ykzesml

Note……icons in the timeline specific slides are not active. Theyare only active when using the timeline software used to develop the CHC Timeline Project

Galton lab and individual differences research (1884-1889)

“Mental test” concept born: James McKeen Cattell (1885-1890)

Charles Spearman (1904)

CHC evolutionSpearman g (general intelligence) + s (specific abilities research (1904-1939)

Spearman developed a “two-factor theory” (general intelligence factor-g + specific factors) to account for correlations between measures of sensory-discrimination (Galton tradition).

Carroll (1993) suggested that it might be better called a "one-general-factor theory." g was hypothesized to represent a fixed amount of “mental energy.” Spearman hypothesized that the g factor involved three major mental processes--apprehension of experience; eduction of relations; eduction of correlates.

Spearman generally credited with introducing the notion of factor analysis to the study of human abilities.

According to Carroll (1993), Spearman and his students eventually began to study other possible factors beyond g. The Spearman-Holzginer Model, which was based on Holzinger's development of the "bi-factor" method, suggested g plus five group factors (verbal, perceptual speed, spatial relations, recognition, and associative memory) (Spearman, 1939).

T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9T1 T12T10 T11

g

Spearman’s general factor model

(T# = designates different test measures)

British factor analysis tradition (1909-1961)

The British models suggested that most of the variance of human intelligence was attributable to g and to very small group factors, and that the importance of the broader group factors was meager (Gustafsson, 1988).

According to Gustafsson (1988), Burt’s model was to a great extent “logically constructed” and thus did not have major impact. In contrast, Horn stated that Burt’s model was very influential (Horn & Noll, 1997).

Vernon 's (1950, 1961) model, which had a g-factor at the apex of the hierarchy, and at the next level two major group-factors (verbal-numerical-educational-v:ed; spatial-practical-mechanical-physical--k:m) received more widespread attention.

British factor analysis tradition (1909-1961)

American factor analysis tradition (1928-1979)

Thurston (1931) Eckstrom (1979)



Primary use of multiple factor analysis methods with the rotation of factors according to the “simple structure” criterion.

• This method does not readily identify a g-factor. • The correlations among oblique factors analyzed to produce “second-order” factors.

Thurstone posited 7-9 primary mental abilities (PMAs) independent of a higher-order g-factor.

Carroll (1993) reports that Thurstone (1947) was willing to accept the possible existence of a g (general factor) above his primary mental abilities--and thus, suggests that Thurstone's model of human cognitive abilities was not fundamentally different from the Spearman--Holzinger g+group factors model.

• The primary difference was the relative importance of the first-order primary mental abilities and the second-order g-factor Carroll (1993).

1940s-1960s saw many factor studies of human cognitive abilities conducted in the “Thurstone tradtion" (Carroll, 1993).

• Summaries of the large body of PMA-based factor research suggested over 60 possible separate primary mental abilities (Ekstrom, French, & Harmon, 1979; French, 1951; French, Eckstrom, & Price, 1963; Guilford, 1967; Hakstian & Cattell, 1974; Horn, 1972).

• The ETS factor-reference group work established the WERCOF (well-replicated common factors) abilities.

• Most modern hierarchical theories of intelligence have their roots in Thurstone’s PMA theory (Horn & Noll, 1977)


PMA1

T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9T1 T12T10 T11

PMA2 PMA3 PMA4…etc

…etc

Thurston’s Multiple Factor (Primary Mental Abilities) Model

(T# = designates different test measures)(PMA# = different “primary mental ability”)


Raymond Cattell was a student and research associate of Charles Spearman.

He proposed the original Gf-Gc theory of intelligence (Cattell, 1941, 1943 ), the formal beginning of the Cattell-Horn Gf-Gc theory. Fluid (Gf) and Crystallized (Gc) intelligence factors were extracted from second-order factor analysis of first-order (e.g., PMA) abilities

Gf intelligence reflected basic reasoning abilities and higher mental processes while Gc intelligence reflected what an individual had learned from exposure to their culture through education and experiences, via the "investment" of their Gf abilities.

Original Gf-Gc Theory (1941-1965)

Raymond Cattell (1941)


Raymond Cattell (1943)



PMA1

T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9T1 T12T10 T11


…etc

Gf Gc…etc

Cattell Dichotomous Gf-Gc (no g) Model

. Cattell & Horn’s Fluid (Gf) and Crystallized (Gc) intelligence factors were extracted from second-order factor analysis of first-order (e.g., PMA) abilities.


According to Carroll (1993), it wasn't until John Horn, a student of Cattell's, completed his dissertation (Horn, 1965) that there was "the first clear test of the theory."


T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9T1 T12T10 T11

g


PMA1

T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9T1 T12T10 T11

PMA2 PMA3 PMA4 …etc

…etc

Thurston’s Multiple Factor (Primary Mental Abilities) Model

PMA1

T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9T1 T12T10 T11


…etc

Gf Gc …etc

Cattell Dichotomous Gf-Gc (no g) Model

At the end of Psychometric Period A (Early Psychometric Theory Roots)Three Dominant Psychometric Models of Intelligence Existed

GeneralAbility (g)

DichotomousAbilities

MultipleCognitive Abilities

(Incomplete; not implicitlyor explicitly CHC-

organized

MultipleCognitive Abilities(Incomplete; implicitly

or explicitly CHC-organized

MultipleCognitive Abilities(“Complete”; implicitly


g

Broad Abilities

Sidebar note: The icon key below will be used in subsequent slides to represent the evolution of psychometric theories and tests of intelligence

BinetSimon

test(1905)

Terman & Merrill Stanford Revision

and Extension(1916,1937)

Dashed arrows indicate that IQ test was not directly linked to any psychometric theoretical research listed in timeline. Solid arrows represent IQ tests grounded in a particular psychometric based theory

Wechsler Bellevue (1939, 1946) WISC (1949)

WPPSI (1967) WISC-R (1974)

WJ (1977)

Stanford-Binet LM (1937; 1960; 1972)

At the end of this period of psychometric research & theory

development, no individually administered IQ test had been

explicitly based on a psychometrically-based theory of intelligence. The IQ theory-test

gap had not yet been bridged

At the end of Psychometric Period A (Early Psychometric Theory Roots) no applied, practical individually administered IQ test was explicitly grounded in

a psychometric-based theory (IQ theory-test gap)

Stanford-Binet was an atheoretical applied measure that provided a g-type global score.

Wechsler batteries were atheoretical applied measures that provided a g-type global score.

• Wechsler did not consider his verbal/performance dichotomy to represent different abilities, rather he asserted that the dichotomy “merely implies that these are different ways in which intelligence may manifest itself “(Wechsler, 1958, p. 64).

WJ battery was an atheoretical applied battery deliberately designed as per a “pragmatic decision-making model” (Woodcock, 1977). It also provided a g-type global score.

• Four separate ability construct measures (Verbal, Reasoning, Memory and Perceptual Speed) were more-or-less secondary level interpretation features and not the primary focus of the battery.

• Primary focus was on four academic based differential aptitude clusters used for differential prediction of achievement and calculation of aptitude-achievement discrepancies.

What was occurring with the formal AAMD/AAMR/AAIDD IQ component of the definition of MR/ID?

Information extracted from Greesspan & Switzky (2006) chapter: “Forty-four years of AAMR Manuals”

Mental retardation refers to subaverage general intellectual functioning which originates during the developmental period and is associated with impairment in adaptive behavior.

1961 manual

Mental retardation refers to significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning existing concurrently with deficits in adaptive behavior and manifested during the developmental period

1973 manual

1983 manual

T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9T1 T12T10 T11

g


At the end of Psychometric Period A (Early Psychometric Theory Roots) the intellectual component of official AAMR MR/ID definition focused

on g (general intelligence)

Mental retardation refers to significantly sub-average general intellectual functioning existing concurrently with deficits in adaptive behavior and manifested during the developmental period (1983)

Note. Period C (below) is integrated together with Period B in the next set of slides

Horn, Cattell and others confirm the original Gf-Gc model

• New broad Gv, Gs, Glr, Gsm and Ga factors added to model

Horn's (1976) review in the Annual Review of Psychology provides support for an expanded Gf-Gc model.

Carroll & Maxwell's (1979) review in the Annual Review of Psychology, although not using classic Gf-Gc or contemporary CHC terms, suggests support for up to 9 different broad Gf-Gc abilities.

• Carroll & Maxwell discuss (a) Language Abilities and Skills [Gc, Grw], (b) Creativity and Fluency of Ideation [Glr], (c) Thinking, Reasoning and Problem Solving [Gf], (d) Abilities Concerned with Number and Quantity [Gq ], (e) Perceptual Skills and Processes in Vision and Audition [Gv, Ga], (f) Memory Skills and Capacities [Gsm, Glr], and (g) Cognitive Speed [Gs]--[note--insertion of contemporary CHC broad ability abbreviations provided by this author--K. McGrew].

The general framework for Carroll's eventual Three-Stratum hierarchical model is outlined in a 1985 paper presentation by Carroll.

Support for the additional broad G-factors is based on the combination of structural (factor analytic), developmental, heritability, neurocognitive, and outcome-criterion evidence research.

Horn (1994) publishes probably his most succinct and understandable overview of extended Gf-Gc theory in The Encyclopedia of Intelligence (Sternberg, 1994).

Gf-Gc Theory Extended (1965-1998)


PMA1

T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9T1 T12T10 T11


…etc

G1 G2 G3…etc

Cattell-Horn Gf-Gc Hierarchical (no g) Model

Gf-Gc Theory Extended (1965-1998) Horn & Catell

Factor abbreviation print clarification (andtranslation to contemporaryCHC terms) completed by K.McGrew 7-11-09

Gf

GlrGsm

Gs GaGv

Gc

Gt

Gf-Gc Theory Extended (1965-1998) – Horn & Stankov (1982)

Gustaffson (1988) proposed and tested a three-level hierarchical LISREL model (HILI) model as a general unifying framework for integrating the British (Spearman, Burt, Vernon) and American (Thurston, Cattell, Horn) traditions of psychometric/theoretical research.

According to Gustaffson, most all prior historical models (e.g., Cattell-Horn; Vernon) can be viewed as “classes” of models within the general HILI framework.

Suggests that Gf may be identical to g.

Gf-Gc Theory Extended (1965-1998) – Gustaffson (1988)

Factor abbreviation clarifications) completed by K.McGrew 7-11-09

Vz

CFR

Cs

Cf

GvS

V

Ms

I

GcVe Ach

Nu Ach

Gf g

Gf-Gc Theory Extended (1965-

1998) – Gustaffson (1988)

Gf-Gc Theory Extended (1965-1998) – Horn (1994)

After over a decade of independent research, John "Jack" Carroll (1993) presents the most comprehensive empirically based synthesis of the extant factor analytic research (from prior 40+ years) regarding the structure of human cognitive abilities.

The structure includes three hierarchical levels (strata) of abilities (narrow, broad, general) that differ by breadth of generality.

The resulting summary provided a working taxonomy of human cognitive abilities by which to guide research and intelligence testing practice.

Carroll's (1993) work is considered a seminal or classic work (see next slide)

After reviewing most all available models of human intelligence, Carroll (1993) concluded that the Cattell-Horn model was the model most similar to that established from his review of the extant factor analytic research.

• There were some differences between the Cattell-Horn and Carroll models, with the most salient point of disagreement being the inclusion (Carroll) or omission (Cattell-Horn) of a stratum-level general intelligence (g) ability at the apex of the structure of human cognitive abilities.

Gf-Gc Theory Extended (1965-1998) – Carroll (1993)

Gf-Gc Theory Extended (1965-1998) – Carroll (1993, 1997)


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

Gf-Gc Theory Extended (1965-1998) – Carroll 1993)

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

(1998)

Gf-Gc Theory Extended (1965-1998) – Woodcock (1998)

Addition of Grw (generalreading/writing broad factor), similar to “English language use” factor/ability suggested by Horn over a number of years

Addition of Gq (quantitative knowledge) broad factor/ability as distinct from quantitative reasoning under Gf broad factor.

Gf-Gc Theory Extended (1965-1998) – Woodcock (1999)

WAIS-R (1981)

WISC-III(1991)WAIS-III (1997)

SB-IV(1986)

K-ABC(1983) DAS

(1990)

KAIT (1993)

CAS (1997)

This period of psychometric research resulted in a flurry of test revisions and the introduction of new intelligence batteries measuring multiple cognitive abilities

Venerable Wechsler and SB batteries revised to reflect research that suggested a number of broad cognitive abilities (between g and narrow abilities). Both moved to four-factor/index models. Note that arrows are still dashed as these developments were not explicitly based on a “complete” psychometric theoretical model of intelligence. Same designation holds for original DAS (1990)

Movement in IQ test development was clearly the embracing of more broad multiple cognitive abilities as most all (excluding KAIT) new tests provided at least four cluster/composite ability measures.

Note solid arrows for K-ABC and CAS as they were theory-based, albeit on non-psychometric models of intelligence (Luria-Das). KAIT also noted with bold arrow as it was grounded in Cattell’s original dichotomous Gf-Gc theoretical model

Due to space limitations the most significant IQ test development event (Ext. Gf-Gc theory based WJ-R) is reported separately (a few slides later)

“It is this author’s personal opinion, that this moment, a moment where the interests and wisdom of a leading applied test developer (Woodcock), the leading proponent of Cattell-Horn Gf-Gc theory (Horn), and one of the preeminent educational psychologists and scholars of the factor analysis of human abilities (Carroll) intersected (see section C in Table 1), was the flash point that resulted in all subsequent theory-to--practice bridging events that led to today’s CHC theory and related assessment developments. A fortuitous set of events had resulted in the psychometric stars aligning themselves in perfect position to lead the way for most all subsequent CHC assessment related developments.” (McGrew, 2004, 2005)

The fortuitous March, 1986 “meeting of the minds” – the CHCIntelligence-to-Theory “flash point”

WJ-R(1989)

John Horn and John “Jack” Carroll were theoretical consultants on the 1989 WJ-R and 2001 WJ III

Thus, the WJ-R was the first IQ battery to bridge the contemporary intelligence theory/research and assessment practice gap

WJ III(2001)


Information extracted from Greesspan & Switzky (2006) chapter: “Forty-four years of AAMR Manuals”

Mental retardation refers to substantial limitations in present functioning. It is characterized by significantly subaverage intellectual functioning , existing concurrently with related limitations in two or more of the following applicable adaptive skill areas; communication, self-care, home living, social skills, community use, self-direction, health and safety, functional academics, leisure and work. Mental retardation manifests itself before age 18

1992 manual

2002 manual

Mental retardation is a disability characterized by significant limitations in intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior as expressed in conceptual, social, and practical living skills. This disability originates before age 18.

Note. Both 1992 and 2002 AAMR models dropped the word “general” from “general intellectual functioning” – result was reference only to intellectual functioning.

T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9T1 T12T10 T11

g


At the end of Extended Gf-Gc Period the intellectual component of official AAMR MR/ID definition focused on intellectual functioning and

not “general” intellectual functioning…almost..but…

According to Greenspan & Switzky (2006), an innovation in the 2002 manual was an effort to conceptually define intelligence as “a general mental ability [that] includes reasoning, planning, solving problems, thinking abstractly, comprehending complex ides, learning quickly, and learning from experience” (p. 51)

However, intellectual functioning was operationally defined as being based on a “general functioning IQ”

The manual (correctly, IMHO) noted the movement among intelligence scholars, as reflected in the above referenced psychometric period of research and theory (as defined by current author—Kevin McGrew), away from a reliance on a single measure of “g” (general intelligence). But…….

“until more robust instruments based upon one of the many promising multifactor theories of intellectual abilities are developed and demonstrated to be psychometrically sound, we will continue to rely on a global (general factor) IQ [score]. (p. 66).

1992 manual

2002 manual

WJ-R(1989)

WJ III(2001)


The 2002 manual correctly noted the movement among intelligence scholars, away from a reliance on a single measure of “g” (general intelligence). But…the manual was incorrect in the following conclusion

“until more robust instruments based upon one of the many promising multifactor theories of intellectual abilities are developed and demonstrated to be psychometrically sound, we will continue to rely on a global (general factor) IQ [score]. (p. 66).

Instruments based upon the then recognized Extended Gf-Gc theory had “bridged” the intelligence theory-IQ assessment gap 13 years earlier, and had been advanced further in 2001.

Contemporary Psychometric Intelligence Theory—AAMR MR Def. Gap

National Research Council, Committee on Disability Determination for Mental Retardation(2002). In D. J. Reschly, T. G. Meters, & C. R. Hartel (Eds.), Mental retardation: Determining eligibility for Social Security benefits. Washington, DC: National Academy Press

In 2002, a national panel of MRexperts recognized the clear CHC movement in the design and revision of IQ tests used to identify MR/ID. More importantly, there was a recognition of a movement (based on solid psychometric theory research) on part scores and less reliance on a g-based full scale total composite IQ score

At the end of Extended Gf-Gc Period B the intellectual component of official AAMR MR/ID definition was still “stuck on g” (general intelligence)…and a contemporary intelligence theory-AAMR MR definition gap now existed

Three and 13 years prior to the publication of the 1992 and 2002 AAMR manuals respectively, the first-ever IQ (+ ACH) battery (WJ-R) explicitly based on the then known and validated Extended Gf-Gc theory, was published (1989), a battery that measured 9 broad Gf-Gc abilities and also provided general intelligence (g) composite scores (Broad Cognitive Ability)

The 1992 manual made no mention of Ext. Gf-Gc theory nor the WJ-R. The manuals list of IQ instruments included the SB-IV, Wechsler batteries, and K-ABC (p. 37) and not the 1989 WJ-R.

10 years later (2002) the red manual recognized and referenced the seminal work of Carroll (1993) yet (a) referenced outdated articles for Horn & Cattell (1963, 1966) that reflected a lack of awareness of Ext. Gf-Gc Theory, (b) did not recognize that the Carroll and Cattell-Horn models were very similal models (major difference was over validity of g) and both were descendants of the Spearman psychometric tradition, (c) listed only non-Gf-Gc developed IQ batteries (Wechslers, SB-IV, CAS, K-ABC, and other special purpose tests) and omitted the 1989 (WJ-R) which had been published 13 years previously, and (d) failed to recognize a sizeable number of Cattell-Horn, Carroll, and WJ-R focused journal publications, books and book chapters published well before the 2002 manual revision. [See illustrative, but not exhaustive, WJ (and select Gf-Gc/CHC model references) reference list and examples on next set of slides].

Contemporary Psychometric Intelligence Theory—AAMR MR Def. Gap

(1990)

Article analyzed ALL major IQ batteriesas per Extended Gf-Gc model

In WJ-RTechnical Manual

(1991)

(1994)

(1998) (2000) (2001)

Select WJ/WJ-R/WJ III and CHC/Gf-Gc references up to 2002 (in descending order) 1 of 14 slides (in case you don’t want to view them all and want to skip ahead

Woodcock, R. W. (2002). New looks in the assessment of cognitive ability. Peabody Journal of Education, 77(2), 6-22.

Vanderwood, M. L., McGrew, K. S., Flanagan, D. P., & Keith, T. Z. (2002). The contribution of general and specific cognitive abilities to reading achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 13, 159-188.

Schrank, F. A., Flanagan, D. P., Woodcock, R. W., & Mascolo, J. T. (2002). Essentials of WJ III Cognitive Abilities Assessment. New York: John Wiley.

Osmon, D., & Jackson, R. (2002). Inspection time and IQ: Fluid or perceptual aspects of intelligence? Intelligence, 30(2), 119-128.

McGrew, K. S., Woodcock, R. W., & Ford, L. (2002). The Woodcock-Johnson--Third Edition (WJ III): Description and application with adolescents and adults. In A. Kaufman, N. Kaufman, & E. Lichtenberg (Eds.), Clinical assessment with adolescents and adults (2nd ed., ). New York: John Wiley.

McGrew, K. S. (2002). Advanced interpretation of the Woodcock-Johnson III. Workshop presented at the annual convention of the National Association of School Psychologists Chicago, IL.

McArdle, J. J., FerrerCaja, E., Hamagami, F., & Woodcock, R. W. (2002). Comparative longitudinal structural analyses of the growth and decline of multiple intellectual abilities over the life span. Developmental Psychology, 38(1), 115-142.

Lee, E., Murry, V. M., Brody, G., & Parker, V. (2002). Maternal resources, parenting, and dietary patterns among rural African American children in single-parent families. Public Health Nursing, 19(2), 104-111.

Huff, E., Sorenson, J., & Dancer, J. (2002). Relation of reading rate and rapid automatic naming among third graders. Perceptual Motor Skills, 95(3 Pt 1), 925-926.

Gregg, N., & Mather, N. (2002). School is fun at recess: Informal analyses of written language for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35( 1), 7-22.

Evans, J. J., Floyd, R. G., McGrew, K. S., & Leforgee, M. H. (2002). The relations between measures of Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) cognitive abilities and reading achievement during childhood and adolescence. School Psychology Review, 31(2), 246-262.

Daleiden, E., Drabman, R. S., & Benton, J. (2002). The Guide to the Assessment of Test Session Behavior: Validity in relation to cognitive testing and parent-reported behavior problems in a clinical sample. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 31(2), 263-271.

Bell, N. L., Rucker, M., Finch, A., & Alexander, J. (2002). Concurrent validity of the Slosson Full-Range Intelligence Test: Comparison with the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children--Third Edition and the Woodcock Johnson Tests of Achievement--Revised. Psychology in the Schools, 39(1), 31-38.

Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.

Schrank, F. A., & Woodcock, R. W. (2001). WJ III Compuscore and Profiles Program [Woodcock-Johnson III]. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.

Rizza, M. G., McIntosh, D. E., & McCunn, A. (2001). Profile analysis of the Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities with gifted students. Psychology in the Schools, 38(5), 447-455.

McGrew, K. S., & Woodcock, R. W. (2001). Technical Manual. Woodcock-Johnson III. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.

McGrew, K. S., Gregg, N., Hoy, C., Stennett, R., Davis, M., Knight, D., Coleman, C., & Ford, L. (2001). Cattell-Horn-Carroll confirmatory factor analysis of the WJ III, WAIS-III, WMS-III and KAIT in a university sample. manuscript in preparation.

Mather, N., & Woodcock, R. W. (2001). Examiner's Manual. Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.

Mather, N., & Woodcock, R. W. (2001). Examiner's Manual. Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievment. Itasca, IL.

Mather, N., Wendling, B. J., & Woodcock, R. W. (2001). Essentials of WJ III Tests of Achievement assessment. John Wiley & Sons.

Mather, N., & Schrank, F. A. (2001). Assessment Service Bulletin No. 3, Use of the WJ III discrepancy procedures for learning disabilities identification and diagnosis. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.

Mather, D. S. (2001). Does dyslexia develop from learning the alphabet in the wrong hemisphere? A cognitive neuroscience analysis. Brain and Language, 76(3), 282-316.

Keith, T. Z., Kranzler, J. H., & Flanagan, D. P. (2001). What does the cognitive assessment system (CAS) measure? Joint confirmatory factor analysis of the CAS and the Woodcock-Johnson tests of cognitive ability (3rd edition). School Psychology Review, 30(1), 89-119.

Flanagan, D. P., & Ortiz, S. (2001). Essentials of cross-battery assessment. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Roid, G. H., & Woodcock, R. H. (2000). Uses of Rasch scaling in the measurement of cognitive development and growth. Journal of Outcome Measurement, 4(2), 579-594.

Flanagan, D. P., McGrew, K. S., & Ortiz, S. (2000). The Wechsler Intelligence Scales and Gf-Gc Theory: A contemproary approach to interpretation. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Flanagan, D. P. (2000). Wechsler-based CHC cross-battery assessment and reading achievement: Strengthening the validity of interpretations drawn from Wechsler test scores. School Psychology Quarterly, 15(3), 295-329.

Dumont, R., Willis, J. O., Farr, L. P., McCarthy, T., & Price, L. (2000). The relationship between the Differential Ability Scales (DAS) and the Woodcock-Johnson tests of Cognitive ability-revised (WJ-R COG) for students referred for special education evaluations. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 18(1), 27-38.

Brown, M. B., Giandenoto, M. J., & Bolen, L. M. (2000). Diagnosing written language disabilities using the Woodcock-Johnson tests of educational achievement-revised and the wechsler individual achievement test. Psychological Reports, 87(1), 197-204.

Dean, R. S. & Woodcock. R. W. (1999). The WJ-R and Bateria-R in Neuropsychological Assessment . Itasca, IL: Riverside.

Davison, M. L., Kuang, H., & Kim, S.-K. (1999). The Structure of Ability Profile Patterns: A Multidemensional Scaling Perspective on the Structure of Intellect. P. L. Ackerman, P. C. Kyllonen, & R. D. Roberts Learning and Individual Differnces (Vol. 8pp. 187-207). Washington,DC: American Psychological Association.

Woodcock, R. W. (1998). Extending Gf-Gc theory into practice. In J. J. McArdle, & R. W. Woodcock (Eds.), Human cognitive abilities in theory and practice . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Snow, R. E. (1998). Abilities and aptitudes and achievements in learning situations. In J.J. McArdle, & R.W. Woodcock (Eds.), Human Cognitive Abilities in Theory and Practice (pp. 93-112). Mahwaw, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Salthouse, T. A. (1998). Independence of age-related influences on cognitive abilities across the life span. Developemental Psychology, 34(5), 851-864.

McGrew, K. S., & Flanagan, D. P. (1998). The intelligence test desk reference (ITDR): Gf-Gc cross battery assessment. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

McArdle, J. J., & Woodcock, R. W. (1998). Human Cognitive Abilities In Theory And Practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Horn, J. (1998). A basis for research on age differences in cognitive abilities. In J.J. McArdle, & R.W. Woodcock (Eds.), Human Cognitive Abilities in Theory and Practice (pp. 57-92). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Flanagan, D. P., & McGrew, K. S. (1998). Interpreting intelligence tests from contemporary Gf-Gc theory: Joint confirmatory factor analysis of the WJ-R and the KAIT in a non-white sample. Journal of School Psychology, 36(2), 151-182.

Cattell, R. B. (1998). Where is intelligence? Some answers from the triadic theory. In J.J. McArdle, & R.W. Woodcock (Eds.), Human cognitive abilities in theory and practice (pp. 29-38). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Carroll, J. B. (1998). Human cognitive abilities: A critique. In J.J. McArdle, & R.W. Woodcock (Eds.), Human cogntive abilities in theory and practice (pp. 5-24). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bolen, L. M. (1998). Assessing cognitive abilities using the Woodcock Johnson . New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Binks, S. W., & Gold, J. M. (1998). Differential cognitive deficits in the neuropsychology of schizophrenia. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 12(1), 8-20.

Zimmerman, I. L., & Woo-Sam, J. M. (1997). Review of the criterion-related validity of the WISC-III: Therfirst five years. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 85, 531-546.

Woodcock, R. W. (1997). The Woodcock Johnson Tests of Cognitive Ability Revised. New York, NY: Gillford Press .

Schultz, M. K. (1997). WISC-III and WJ-R tests of achievement: Concurrent validity and learning disability identification. The Journal of Speical Education, 31(3), 377-386.

McGrew, K. S., & Wrightson, W. (1997). The calculation of new and improved WISC-III subtest reliability, uniqueness, and general factor characteristic information through the use of data smoothing procedures. Psychology in the Schools, 34(3), 181-195.

McGrew, K. S., Flanagan, D. P., Keith, T. Z., & Vanderwood, M. (1997). Beyond g: The impact of Gf-Gc specific cognitive abilities research on the future use and interpretation of intelligence tests in the schools . School Psychology Review, 26(2), 189-210.

McGrew, K. S. (1997). Analysis of the major intelligence batteries according to a proposed comprehensive Gf-Gc framework. In D. P. Flanagan, J. L. Genshaft, & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 151-179). New York: Guildord.

McArdle, J. J., & Woodcock, R. W. (1997). Expanding test-retest designs to include developmental time-lag components. Psychological Methods, 2(4), 403-435.

Konold, T. R., Glutting, J. J., & McDermott, P. A. (1997). The development and applied utility of a normative aptitude-achievement taxonomy for the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery-Revised. The Journal of Special Education, 31(2), 212-232.

Flanagan, D. P., & McGrew, K. S. (1997). A cross-battery approch to assessing and interpeting cognitive abilities: Narrrowing the gap between practice and science. In D. P. Flanagan, J. L. Genshaft, & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 314-325). New York: Guilford.

Flanagan, D. P., McGrew, K. S., Abramowitz, E., Lehner, L., Untiedt, S., Berger, D., & Armstrong, H. (1997). Improvement in academic screening instruments? A concurrent validity investigation of the K-FAST, MBA, and WRAT-3. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 15, 99-112.

Cameron, L. C., Ittenbach, R. F., McGrew, K. S., Harrison, P. L., Taylor, L. R., & Hwang, Y. R. (1997). Confirmatory factor analysis of the K-ABC with gifted referrals. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57(5), 823-840.

Laurent, J. (1996). Characteristics of the standard and supplemental batteries of the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Ability-Revised with a college sample. Paper presented at the annual convention of the National Association of School Psychologists, Atlanta, GA.

Woodcock, R. W., & Munoz-Sandoval, A. F. (1996). Batteria Woodcock-Munoz Pruebas de Habiliadad Cognoscitiva - Revisada. Chicago, IL: Riverside Publishing.

Woodcock, R. W., & Munoz-Sandoval, A. F. (1996). Batteria Woodcock-Munoz Pruebas de Aprovechmiento - Revisada. Chicago, IL: Riverside Publishing.

Phelps, L. (1996). Discriminative validity of the WRAML with ADHD and LD children. Psychology in the Schools, 33, 5-12.

Ochoa, S. H., Powell, M. P., & Robles-Pina, R. (1996). School psychologists' assessment practices with bilingual and limited-english-proficient students. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 14, 250-275.

McGrew, K. S., & Knopik, S. N. (1996). The relationship between intra-cognitive scatter on the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery-Revised and school achievement. Journal of School Psychology, 34(4), 351-364.

McGrew, K. S., & Flanagan, D. P. (1996). The Wechsler performance scale IQ debate: Fluid intelligence (Gf) or visual processing (Gv)? NASP Communique, 24(6).

McGrew, K. S., Bruininks, R. H., & Johnson, D. R. (1996). Confirmatory factor analytic investigation of Greenspan's Model of personal Competence. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 100(5), 533-545.

Mardell-Czudnowski, C. (1996). A survey of assessment professionals in the US. School Psychology International, 17, 189-203.Hicks, P., & Bolen, L. M. (1996). Review of the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery-Revised. Journal of School Psychology, 34(1), 93-102.

Flanagan, D. P., & McGrew, K. S. (1996). The Wechsler Performance Scale debate: Fluid Intelligence (Gf) or Visual Processing? NASP Communique, 24(6).

Canivez, G. L. (1996). Validity and diagnostic efficiency of the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test in reevaluating students with learning disability. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 14, 4-19.

Woodcock, R. W. (1995). Conceptualizations of intelligence and their implications for education. Paper presented at the AERA annual convention, San Francisco, CA.

Simpson, R. G., & Halpin, G. (1995). Psychometric effects of altering the ceiling criterion on the Passage Comprehension test of the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery-Revised. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55(4), 630-636.

Shull-Senn, S., Weatherly, M., Morgan, S.-K., & Bradley-Johnson, S. (1995). Stability reliability for elementary-age students on the Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational Battery--Revised (Achievment section) and the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievment. Psychology in the Schools, 32, 86-92.

Schuerholz, L. J., Harris, E. L., Baumgardner, T. L., & Reiss, A. L. (1995). An analysis of two discrepancy-based models and a processing-deficit approach in identifying learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28, 18-29.

Reed, M. T., & McCallum, S. (1995). Construct validity of the Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test (UNIT). Psychology in the Schools, 32, 277-290.McGrew, K. S., & Murphy, S. R. (1995). Uniqueness and general factor characteristics of the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Ability-Revised. Journal of School Psychology, 33, 235-245.

McGrew, K. S., & Hessler, G. L. (1995). The relationship between the WJ-R Gf-Gc cognitive clusters and mathematics achievement across the life-span. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 13, 21-38.

Hooper, S. R. (1995). Relationship between the Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Battery and Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievment-Revised in children with psychiatric impairment. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 80, 1353-1354.

Flanagan, D. P., & McGrew, K. S. (1995). The field of intellectual assessment: A current perspective . The School Psychologist, 49(1).

Flanagan, D. P., & McGrew, K. S. (1995). A cross-battery approach to intelligence test interpretation. NASP Communique, 24(4).

Flanagan, D. P., & McGrew, K. S. (1995). Will you evolve or become extinct? Interpreting intelligence tests from modern Gf-Gc theory. 27th annual convention of the National Association of School Psychologists, Chicago, IL.

Flanagan, D. P., & Alfonso, V. C. (1995). A critical review of the technical charcteristics of new and recently revised intelligence tests for preschool children. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 13, 66-90.

Flanagan, D. P., Alfonso, V.C., Kaminer, T., & Rader, D. E. (1995). Incidence of basic concepts in the directions of new and revised American intelligence tests for preschool children. School Psychology International., 16, 345-364.

Bickley, P. G., Keith, T. Z., & Wolfle, L. M. (1995). The three-stratum theory of cognitive abilities: Test of the structure of intelligence across the life span. Intelligence, 20(3), 309-328.

Alfonso, V. C., & Flanagan, D. P. (1995). A critical review of the technical characteristics of new and recently revised intelligence tests for preschool children. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 13, 66-90.

Woodcock, R. W. (1994). Measures of fluid and crystallized intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Intelligence (pp. 452-456). New York: Macmillan.

Stinnett, T. A., Havey, J. M., & Oehler-Stinnett, J. (1994). Current test usage by practicing school psychologists: A national survey. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 12, 331-350.

McGrew, K. S., Murphy, S. R., & Knutson, D. J. (1994). The development and investigation of a graphic scoring system for obtaining derived scores for the WJ-R and other tests. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 12, 33-41.

McGrew, K. S. (1994). Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Ability--Revised. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The encyclopedia of intelligence (pp. 1152-1158). New York: Macmillan.

McGrew, K. S. (1994). Clinical interpretation of the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Ability Revised. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

McGrew, K. S. (1994). The achievement content criticism of the WJ and WJ-R: A myth. NASP Communique, 22(8).

McGhee, R., & Liberman, L. (1994). Gf-Gc Theory of human cognition: Differentiation of short-term auditory and visual memory factors. Psychology in the Schools, 31, 297-304.

Mather, N., & Roberts, R. (1994). Learning Disabilities: A field in danger of extinction? Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 9(1), 49-58.Woodcock, R. W., & Munoz-Sandoval, A. F. (1993). An IRT approach to cross-language test equating and interpretation. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 9(3), 233-241.

Woodcock, R. W. (1993). An information processing view of Gf-Gc theory. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, Monograph Series: WJ R Monograph, 80-102.

Williams, J., Zolten, A. J., Rickert, V. I., & Spence, G. T. (1993). Use of nonverbal tests to screen for writing dysfluency in school-age children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 76, 803-809.

Sinnet, E. R., Rogg, K. L., Benton, S. L., Downey, R. G., & Whitfill, J. M. (1993). The Woodcock-Johnson Revised-Its factor structure. Educational and Psychological Measurement , 53, 763-769.

Schrank, F. A. (1993). Unique contributions of the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery-Revised to psychoeducational assessment. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, Monograph Series: WJ R Monograph, 71-79.

Schouten, P. G., & Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1993). Questions and concerns about the Miller Assessment for Preschoolers. Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 13, 7-28.

Meinhardt, M., Hibbett, C., Koller, J., & Busch, R. (1993). Comparison of the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery-Revised and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised with incarcerated adolescents. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, Monograph Series: WJ R Monograph, 64-70.

McGrew, K. S., Thurlow, M. L., & Spiegel, A. N. (1993). An investigation of the exclusion of students with disabilities in national data collection programs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(3), 339-352.

McGrew, K. S., & Knopik, S. N. (1993). The relationship between the WJ-R Gf-Gc cognitive clusters and writing achievement across the life-span. School Psychology Review, 22, 687-695.

McGrew, K. S. (1993). The relationship between the WJ-R Gf-Gc cognitive clusters and reading achievement across the lifespan. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, Monograph Series: WJ R Monograph, 39-53.

McGrew, K. S. (1993). Intelligence testing and Gf-Gc theory. NASP Communique, 21(5).

McGhee, R. L., & Buckhalt, J. A. (1993). Test review: Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery--Revised. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, WJ R Monograph, 136-149.

Mather, N. (1993). Critical issues in the diagnosis of learning disabilities addressed by the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery-Revised. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, Monograph Series: WJ R Monograph, 103-122.

Klinge, V., & Dorsey, J. (1993). Correlates of the Woodcock-Johnson Reading Comprehension and Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test in a forensic psychiatric population. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 49, 593-598.

Kamphaus, R. W. (1993). Clinical assesment of children's intelligence. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacn.

Hoy, C., Gregg, N., Jagota, M., King, M., Moreland, C., & Manglitz, E. (1993). Relationship between the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised and the Woodcock-Johnson Test of Cognitive Ability-Revised among adults with learning disabilities in university and rehabilitation settings.

Journal of Psychoeduational Assessment, Monograph Series: WR R Monograph, 54-63.Guerin, D. W., Griffin, J. R., Gottfried, A. W., & Christenson, G. N. (1993). Concurrent validity and screening efficiency of the Dyslexia Screener. Psychological Assessment, 5, 369-373.

Evans, J. H., Carlsen, R. N., & McGrew, K. S. (1993). Classification of exceptional students with the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery-Revised. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, Monograph Series: WJ R Monograph, 6-19.

Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor analytic studies. New York: Cambridge University Press.Benton, S. L., Downey, R. G., Rogg, K. L., Sinnet, E. R., & Whitfill, J. M. (1993). The Woodcock-Johnson Revised- Its factor structure. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 763-768.

Sattler, J. M. (1992). Assessment of children. San Diego, CA: Jerome Sattler Publisher, Inc.

Olivarez, A., Palmer, D. J., & Guillemard, L. (1992). Predictive bias with referred and nonreferred black, hispanic, and white pupils. Learning Disability Quarterly, 15, 175-186.

McLeskey, J. (1992). Students with learning disabilities at primary, intermediate, and secondary grade levels: Identification and characteristics. Learing Disability Quarterly, 15, 13-19.

Mather, N., & Jaffe, L. E. (1992). Woodcock Johnson Psycho Educational Battery Revised: Recommendations & reports. Brandon, Vermont: Clinical Psychology Publishing Co.

Ittenbach, R., Spiegel, A., McGrew, K. S., & Bruininks, R. (1992). A confirmatory factor analysis of early childhood ability measures within a model of personal competence. Journal of School Psychology, 30, 307-323.

Harrington, R. G., Kimbrell, J., & Dai, X. (1992). The relationship between the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery-Revised (Early Development) and the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence-Revised. Psychology in the Schools, 29, 116-125.

Dunn, C., McGhee, R., & Bryant, B. R. (1992). A validation study of the Detroit Tests of Learning Aptitude-Primary: Second Edition. Diagnostique, 17, 266-272.

McGrew, K. S., Werder, J. K., & Woodcock, R. W. (1991). The WJ-R technical manual. Allen, TX: DLM.

Mather, N., Vogel, S. A., Spodak, R. B., & McGrew, K. S. (1991). Use of the Woodcock-Johnson-Revised writing tests with students with learning disabilities. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 9, 296-307.

Mather, N. (1991). An instructional guide to the Woodcock Johnson Psycho Educational Battery Revised. Brandon, Vermont: Clinical Psychology Publishing Co.

Horn, J. L. (1991). Measurement of intellectual capabilities: A review of theory. In K. S. McGrew, J. K. Werder, & R. W. Woodcock (Eds.), WJ-R technical manual . Chicago: Riverside.

Ysseldyke, J. E. (1990). Goodness of fit of the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery-Revised to the Horn-Cattell GF-GC theory. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 8, 268-275.

Woodcock, R. W. (1990). Theoretical foundations of the WJ-R measures of cognitive ability. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 8, 231-258.Tupper, D. E. (1990). Some observations on the use of the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Congitive Abilities in adults with head injury. Journal of Learning Abilities, 23(5), 306-310.

Reschly, D. J. (1990). Found: Our intelligences: What do they mean? Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 8(259-267).

Merrell, K. W. (1990). Differentiating low achieving students and students with learning disabilities: An examination of prerformances on the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery. Journal of Special Education, 24, 296-305.

Mather, N., & Healey, W. C. (1990). Deposing aptitude-achievement discrepancy as the imperial criterion for learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 1 (2), 40-48.

Kaufman, A. S. (1990). Assessing adolescent and adult intelligence. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Cuenin, L. H. (1990). Use of the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational battery with learning disabled adults. Learning Disability Focus, 5(2), 119-123.

Carroll, J. B. (1990). Estimating item and ability parameters in homogeneous tests with the person characteristics function. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14, 109-125.

Bracken, B. A., & Fagan, T. K. (1990). Intelligence: Theories and practice [Special Issue]. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 8.Woodcock, R. W., & Johnson, M. B. (1989). Woodcock Johnson Psycho Educational Battery-Revised. Chicago: Riverside.

Powers, A. D. (1989). Fourth edition of the Stanford-Binet Intellgence Scale and the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement: criterion validity study. Dissertation Abstracts International, 50(4), 907-A.

Horn, J. L. (1989). Measurement of intellectual capabilities: A review of theory. In K. S. McGrew, J. K. Werder, & R. W. Woodcock (Eds), WJ R technical manual (pp. 197-245). Chicago, IL: Riverside.

Dettenmaier, L. (1989). Use of intelligence and achievement in the identification of learning disability subtypes. Dissertation Abstracts International, 50(5), 1271-A.

Araujo, R. L. (1989). Cofirmatory factor analysis of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale: Fourth Edition and the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abilities with the standardization samples. Dissertation Abstracts International, 50(5), 2144-B.

Strein, W. (1988). Theoretical analysis of the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Ability: A second look. Journal of School Psychology, 21-25.Rosso, M., & Phelps, L. (1988). Factor analysis of the Woodcock-Johnson with conduct disordered adolescents. Psychology in the Schools, 25, 105-110.

McGrew, K. S., & Pehl, J. (1988). Prediction of future achievement by the Woodcock Johnson Psychoeducational Battery and the WISC-R. Journal of School Psychology, 26, 275-281.

Kaufman, A. S., & O'Neal, M. (1988). Factor structure of the Woodcock-Johnson cognitive subtests from preschool to adulthood. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 6, 35-48.

Horn, J. L. (1988). Thinking about human abilities. In J. R. Nesselroade (Ed.), Handbook of multivariate psychology (pp. 645-685). New York: Academic Press.

Woodcock, R. W. (1987). Who should use the Woodcock-Johnson: A response from Richard Woodcock. NASP Communique, 15(8), 4.

McGrew, K. S. (1987). A multivariate analysis of the Wechsler/Woodcock Johnson discrepancy controversy. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 5, 49-60.

McGrew, K. S. (1987). Exploratory factor analysis of the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Ability. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 5, 200-216.

Hessler, G. L. (1987). Educational issues surrounding severe discrepancy. Learning Disabilities Research, 3(1), 43-49.

McGrew, K. S. (1986). A review of the differential predictive validity of the Woodcock-Johnson Scholastic Aptitude clusters. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 4, 307-317.

McGrew, K. S. (1986). Clinical interpretation of the Woodcock Johnson Tests of Cognitive Ability. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Bracken, B. A. (1986). Incidence of basic concepts in the directions of five commonly used American test of intelligence. School Psychology International, 7, 1-10.

Woodcock, R. W. (1985). DLM Assessment Service Bulletin #5: Correction for regression when using standard scores. 4.

Phelps, L., Rosso, M., & Falasco, S. L. (1985). Multiple regression data using the WISC-R and the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Ability. Psychology in the Schools, 22, 46-49.

McGrew, K. S., & Woodcock, R. W. (1985). Subtest norms for the WJ SIB Assessment System. Allen, TX: DLM/Teaching Resources.

McGrew, K. S. (1985). Investigation of the verbal/nonverbal structure of the Woodcock-Johnson: Implications for subtest interpretation and comparisons with the Wechsler Scale . Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 3, 65-71.

Laughon, P., & Torgesen, J. K. (1985). Effects of alternate testing procedures on two subtests of the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery. Psychology in the Schools, 22, 160-163.

Kaufman, A. S. (1985). Review of the Woodcock-Johnson Psyco-Educational Battery. In J. F. Mitchell (Eds), The ninth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 1762-1765). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements, University of Nebraska Press.

Cummings, J. (1985). Review of the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery. In J. F. Mitchell (Eds), The ninth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 1759-1762). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institution of Mental Measurements, University of Nebraska Press.

Woodcock, R. W.Some background regarding the design of the Woodcock-Johnson. 3.

Woodcock, R. W. (1984). A response to some questions raised about the Woodcock-Johnson: II. Efficacy of the aptitude clusters. School Psychology Review, 13, 355-362.

Woodcock, R. W. (1984). A response to some questions raised about the Woodcock-Johnson: I. The mean score discrepancy issue. School Psychology Review, 13, 342-354.

Woodcock, R. W. (1984). Bateria Woodcock Psico Educativa en Espanol. Chicago: Riverside.

Thompson, P., & Brassard, M. (1984). Validity of the Woodcock-Johnson tests of cognitive ability: A comparison with the WISC-R in LD and normal elementary students. Journal of School Psychology, 22, 201-208.

Thompson, P., & Brassard, M. (1984). Cummings soft on Woodcock-Johnson . School Psychology Review, 12(1), 41-44.

Thompson, P., & Brassard, M. (1984). Cummings and Moscato soft on Woodcock-Johnson. School Psycology Review, 13, 41-44.

McGrew, K. S. (1984). Normative-based guides for subtest profile interpretation of the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Ability. Journal of Psychoducational Assessment, 2, 141-148.

McGrew, K. S. (1984). An analysis of the influence of the Quantitative Concepts subtest in the Woodcock-Johnson Scholastic Aptitude Clusters. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 2, 325-332.

Marston, D., & Ysseldyke, J. (1984). Concerns in interpreting subtest scatter on the tests of cognitive ability from the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17(10), 588-591.

Hall, R. J., Reeve, R. E., & Zakreski, J. R. (1984). Validity of the Woodcock-Johnson tests of acheivement for learning-disabled students. Journal of School Psychology, 22, 193-200.

Cummings, J., & Moscato, E. (1984). Research on the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Pattery: Implications for practice and future investigations. School Psychology Review, 13(1), 33-40.

Cummings, J., & Moscato, E. (1984). Research of the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery: Implications for practice and future investigation. School Psychology Review, 13, 33-40.

Cummings, J., & Moscato, E. (1984). Reply to Thompson and Brassard. School Psychology Review, 13, 45-58.

Bruininks, R., Woodcock, R., Hill, B., & Weatherman, R. (1984). Scales of Independent Behavior: Woodcock Johnson Psycho Educational Battery: Part Four. Chicago: Riverside.

Breen, M. J. (1984). The temporal stability of the Woodcock-Johnson tests of cognitive ability for elementary-aged and learning-disabled children. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 3, 257-261.

Breen, M. J. (1984). An analysis of Wide Range Achievement Test and Woodcock-Johnson achievement grade and standard scores for learning disabled and nonreferred regular students. Educational and Psychological Research, 4(3).

Breen, M., Lehman, J., & Carlson, M. (1984). Achievement correlates of the Woodcock-Johnson reading and mathematics subtests, KeyMath, and Woodcock reading in an elementary aged learning disabled population. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 258-261.

Bracken, B., Prasse, D., & Breen, M. (1984). Concurrent validity of the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery with regular and learning disabled children. Journal of School Psychology, 22, 185-192.

Arffa, S., Rider, L., & Cummings, J. (1984). A validity study of the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery and the Stanford-Binet with black preschool children. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 2, 73-77.

McGrew, K. S. (1983). Comparison of the WISC-R and Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Ability. Journal of School Psychology, 21, 271-276.

The Ninth Mental Measurements Yearbook. (1983). T. Kaufman Review of the Woodcock Johnson Psycho Eudcational Battery, in J.F. Mitchell . University of Nebraska Press.

Kampwirth, T. (1983). Problems in the use of the Woodcock-Johnson suppressors. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 1, 337-339.Cummings, J., & Sanville, D. (1983). Concurrent validity of the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Ability with the WISC-R: EMR children. Psychology in the Schools, 20, 298-303.

Breen, M. J. (1983). A correlation analysis between the PPVT-R and the Woodcock-Johnson achievement cluster scores for nonreferred and regular education and learning disabled students. Psychology in the Schools, 20, 259-297.

Breen, M. J. (1983). Comparing the Woodcock-Johnson achievement cluster scores and Wide Range Achievement Test in a learning disabled and irregular education population. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 39, 86-90.

Bohline, D. (1983). Intellectual characteristics of attention deficit disordered children as measured by two tests of cognitive ability. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, United States International University, San Diego, CA.

Woodcock, R. W. (1982). Interpretation of the rasch ability and difficulty scales for educational purposes. 1-11.

Woodcock, R. W. (1982). Bateria Woodcock Psico-Educativa en Espanol. Allan, TX: DLM.

Shinn, M., Algozzine, B., Marston, D., & Ysseldyke, J. (1982). A theoretical analysis of the performance of learning disabled students on the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 15, 221-226.

McGue, M., Shinn, M., & Ysseldyke, J. (1982). Use of the cluster scores on the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery with learning disabled students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 274-287.

Hessler, G. L. (1982). Use and interpretation of the Woodcock Johnson Psycho Educational Battery. Chicago: Riverside.

Cummings, J. (1982). Interpreting functioning levels: Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery. Psychological Reports, 50, 1167-1171.

Breen, M. J., & Hehman, J. (1982). Concurrnt validity of the Woodcock-Johnson mathematics and reading subtests with a middle school learning disabled population. Educational and Psychological Research, 2 , 173-179.

Ysseldyke, J. E., Algozzine, B., & Shinn, M. (1981). Validity of the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery for learning disabled youngsters. Learning Disability Quarterly, 4, 244-249.

Ysseldyke, J., Shinn, M. R., & Epps, S. (1980). A comparison of the WISC-R and the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Ability. Psychology in the Schools, 18, 15-19.

Shinn, M., Algozzine, B., Martston, D., & Ysseldyke, J. (1980). Review of Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery. School Psychology International, 1(4), 20-22.

Marston, D. (1980). Research Report #46: An analysis of subtest scatter on the tests of cognitive ability fron the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery. 10.

Reeve, R. E., Hall, R. J., & Zakreski, R. S. (1979). The Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Ability: Concurrent validity with the WISC-R. Learning Disability Quarterly, 2, 63-69.

McGue, M., Shinn, M., & Ysseldyke, J. (1979). Validity of the Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational Battery with learning disabled students (Research Report No. 15). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Institute of Research on Learning Disabilities.

Woodcock, R. W., & Johnson, M. B. (1978). Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery. Hingham, MA: Teaching Resources.

Woodcock, R. W. (1978). Development and standardization of the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery. Hingham, MA: Teaching Resources.

Woodcock, R. W., & Johnson, M. B. (1977). Woodcock Johnson Psycho EducationalBattery. Chicago: Riverside.

(McGrew, 1997) – Integrated Cattell-Horn and Cattell Gf-Gc Model

(1997)

(1997)

(1997)

(1997)

Origin of combined Cattell-Horn and Carroll models into Integrated Gf-Gc model framework..later to be called Cattell-Horn-Carroll Theory (CHC)

Gf Gq Gsm Gv Ga Gs CDS GrwGc Glr

Flui

d In

telli

genc

e

Crys

talli

zed

Inte

llige

nce

Qua

ntita

tive

Know

ledg

e

Shor

t-Ter

mM

emor

y

Visu

al

Proc

essi

ng

Audi

tory

Proc

essi

ng

Long

-Ter

mRe

trie

val

Proc

essi

ngSp

eed

Corr

ect

Dec

isio

n Sp

eed

Read

ing/

Writi

ng

Cattell-H

orn

Carroll and Cattell-Horn Model Comparison

Flui

d In

telli

genc

e

Crys

talli

zed

Inte

llige

nce

Gen

. Mem

ory

& L

earn

ing

Broa

d Vi

sual

Perc

eptio

n

Broa

d Au

dito

ryPe

rcep

tion

Broa

d Re

trie

val

Abili

ty

Broa

d Co

gniti

veSp

eedi

ness

Dec

/Rea

ction

Tim

e/Sp

eed

g

Carroll Gf Gy Gv Gs GtGc GrGu

(McGrew, 1997) – Integrated Cattell-Horn and Cattell Gf-Gc Model

Consensus Cattell-Horn-Carroll Hierarchical Three-Stratum Model

PMA1

T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9T1 T12T10 T11


…etc

G1 G2 G3

…etc

g ?

Stratum I

Stratum II

Stratum III


Note…details from this period (E) not dealt with in current slide show

McGrew, K. S. (2005). The Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory of cognitive abilities: Past, present and future. In D. Flanagan, & Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (p.136-202). New York: Guilford Press.

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.

PMA1

T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9T1 T12T10 T11


…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


…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


…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 representlatent 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

Summary of evolution of psychometric intelligence theories

g

Gf GqGcSARGsm Gv Ga

TSRGlm Gs CDS Grw

Gkn Gh Gk Go

Gf Gc Gy Gv Gu Gr Gs Gt

Gp Gps

A. Carroll Three-Stratum Model

B. Cattell-Horn Extended Gf-Gc Model

D. Tentatively identified Stratum II (broad) domains

Carroll and Cattell-Horn Broad Ability Correspondence (vertically-aligned ovals represent similar broad domains)

Gf GqGc Gsm Gv Ga Glr Gs Gt Grw

C. Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) Integrated Model

g

Stratum III (general)

Stratum II (broad)

80+ Stratum I (narrow) abilities have been identified under the Stratum II broad abilities. They

are not listed here due to space limitations(see Table 1)

Gf Fluid reasoning Gkn General (domain-specific) knowledgeGc Comprehension-knowledge Gh Tactile abilitiesGsm Short-term memory Gk Kinesthetic abilitiesGv Visual processing Go Olfactory abilitiesGa Auditory processing Gp Psychomotor abilitiesGlr Long-term storage and retrieval Gps Psychomotor speedGs Cognitive processing speedGt Decision and reaction speed (see Table 1 for definitions)Grw Reading and writingGq Quantitative knowledge

CHC Broad (Stratum II) Ability Domains

(Missing g-to-broad ability arrows acknowledges that Carroll and Cattell-Horn disagreed on the validity of the general factor)

SB5 (Roid, 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-IQ test design bandwagon begins: Other major IQ tests are revised and place the

CHC model as the center of each batteries design blueprint.

WJ III(2001)

CHC IQ test bandwagon

SB-V(2003)

WISC-IV(2003)

WAIS-IV(2008)

DAS-II(2007)

KABC-II(2004)

(2001; 2007)(2003)

(2004)

(2007)

National Research Council, Committee on Disability Determination for Mental Retardation(2002). In D. J. Reschly, T. G. Meters, & C. R. Hartel (Eds.), Mental retardation: Determining eligibility for Social Security benefits. Washington, DC: National Academy Press

In 2002, a national panel of MRexperts recognized the clear CHC movement in the design and revision of IQ tests used to identify MR/ID. More importantly, there was a recognition of a movement (based on solid psychometric theory/research) on part scores and less reliance on a g-based full scale total composite IQ score

Quotes from manual (emphasis via underline added by K. McGrew)

Intellectual disability is characterized by significant limitations both in intellectual functioning and in adaptive behavior as expressed in conceptual, social and practical adaptive skills. This disability originates before age 18 (p. 5)

Intelligence is a general mental ability (p.31)

Intelligence is a single trait (p.32).

A single dimension of intelligence continues to garner the most support within the scientific community…Thus, until such measures of multiple intelligences can be assessed reliably and validly, it is the position of AAIDD that intellectual functioning…is best conceptualized and captured by a general factor of intelligence (g) (p, 34)

AAIDD 11th edition (green manual) published 2010

“Stuck on g”

2010 manual

WJ III(2001)

WAIS-IV(2008)

KABC-II(2004)

DAS-II(2007)

SB-V(2003)

WISC-IV(2003)

Contemporary Psychometric Intelligence Theory—AAIDD MR Def. Gap

Not to be covered in

current presentation

2002

National MR/ID expert panel recognized CHC theory and trend toward CHC-based IQ tests

The current AAIDD ID definition is still “stuck on g” (general intelligence)…and continues to be out of step with contemporary psychometric intelligence theory. A major intelligence theory-- AAIDD ID

definition gap exists. This gap has potentially serious consequences for individuals with disabilities

Despite the widespread acceptance and recognition of the contemporary CHC (aka Extended Gf-Gc) theory of intelligence by intelligence scholars, a 2002 national panel of MR/ID experts, and the clear movement in applied IQ test development to test batteries grounded in the CHC framework, AAIDD continues to be “stuck on g”

The AAIDD definition of intelligence is out-of-date. A major intelligence theory—AAIDD ID definition gap exists

Contemporary intelligence scholars, experts, and test developers recognize that although g (general intelligence) may exist at the apex of the CHC taxonomy of human cognitive abilities, there are broad (stratum II) abilities that are important (i.e., have differential validities) that can be assessed and, when interpreted appropriately, can provide a more valid and multidimensional picture of an individuals intellectual functioning.

AAIDD’s continued use of the statement (with regard to measurement of multiple cognitive abilities) that “until such measures of multiple intelligences can be assessed reliably and validly, it is the position of AAIDD that intellectual functioning…is best conceptualized and captured by a general factor of intelligence” is simply wrong! Reliable and valid measures of the broad CHC ability domains exist and have been published in most intelligence batteries published from 1989 to 2008.

The AAIDD g-position is at odds with the known heterogeneity of abilities within the ID (and general) population and fails to recognize that although a g-based total composite score may often represent the best single index of a person’s intellectual functioning, often the g-based composite score may lead to inaccurate conclusions regarding a person’s intellectual functioning and in these cases more attention should be focused on the component part scores. The stuck on g position has the potential to result in serious consequences for individuals, such as denial of special education services; denial of SS benefits, and unjust execution as in “Atkins MR/ID death penalty cases”.

Contemporary Psychometric Intelligence Theory—AAIDD ID Def. Gap

Ap

plie

d I

Q B

att

erie

s

GeneralAbility (g)

DichotomousAbilities

MultipleCognitive Abilities

(Incomplete; not implicitlyor explicitly CHC-

organized

MultipleCognitive Abilities(Incomplete; implicitly


MultipleCognitive Abilities(“Complete”; implicitly


Prim

ary

Th

eo

ries

(Neu

rops

ych.

P

sych

omet

ric)

Spearman Original Gf-Gc

Simultaneous-Successive

Thurstone PMAs

PASS(Planning, Attention,

Simultaneous, Successive)

Cattell-Horn Carroll (CHC)Theory of Cognitive Abilities

WJ-R (1989) WJ III (2001)WJ III NU (2005)

WJ (1977)

Stanford-Binet LM

(1937; 1960; 1972)

SB-IV (1986) SB-V(2003)

DAS-II (2007)CAS (1997)DAS (1990)

WPPSI-R (1989)WISC-R (1974)

W-B (1939; 1946)WAIS-R (1981)

WPPSI-III (2002)WISC-III 1991)WAIS-III (1997)

WISC-IV (2003)WAIS-IV (2008)

K-ABC (1983)KAIT (1993)

KABC-II (2004)

g

Summary Continuum of Progress: Intelligence Theories and Test Batteries

Note: This is an adaptation (9-29-09) by Kevin McGrew of Figure 2.1 in Flanagan, McGrew & Ortiz (2000).

Bold font designates most current version of battery.

Bold Italic font designates batteries with adult norms.

Placement of WISC-IV/WAIS-IV recognizes that although only providing four broad composite scores, the revisions implicitly incorporated aspects of CHC theory

WJ III NU reflects a Normative Update to the WJ III norms without changes to the tests

Broad Abilities

AAIDD MR intelligence g focus

definition2010

AAIDD MR Def. /IQ Theory Gap

Evolution of psychometric IQ theories from Spearman g to CHC: With special analysis of AAIDD ID/MR 2010 manaul

Education

g factor

generalfactor theory

suggested g

contemporary chc

notion of factor analysis

charles spearman

iap chc timeline project

variance of human intelligence