the wj iv and beyond chc theory: kevin mcgrew's nasp mini-skills workshop
TRANSCRIPT
The WJ IV Tests of Cognitive Ability & Beyond CHC Theory
(NASP 2015 Mini-skills workshop)
Kevin S. McGrew, PhD.
Institute for Applied Psychometrics&
University of Minnesota
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
• Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP)-Director
• University of Minnesota - Visiting Professor (Educ Psych)
• Interactive Metronome - Director of Research and Science (External Consultant) *
• Darhma Berkmana Foundation (YDB; Indonesia) –Intelligence expert for development of first Indonesian CHC-based intelligence battery for children
* Conflict of interest disclosure: Financial relationship and interest in IM; Coauthor of WJ III and WJ IV (royalty interest)
Kevin S McGrew, PhD
Affiliations and Disclosures
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
The WJ IV Tests of Cognitive Ability & Beyond CHC Theory: Session Outline
1. Big picture overview: Conceptual, theoretical, organizational, and design principles behind the WJ IV COG
2. Show and tell: The new tests and the WJ IV COG clusters
3. “Dare to compare”--“regress for success:” Intracognitive variations and PSW Gf-Gc composite hybrid comparison procedures
4. Breaking Bad: The WJ IV COG/OL table of cognitive elements
5. “In god we trust…all others must show data:”—select COG tech. info.
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
John Horn, compared the process of classifying and categorizing human abilities and intelligence to
“slicing smoke”. (Horn, 1991)
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
A fundamental limitation of any theory built on a rectilinear system of factors is that it is not of a form that well describes natural phenomena. It is thus unlikely to be fully adequate. It is a system that can accurately describe rectangular structures built by humans…but not the rounded and irregular structures of mother nature. The phenomena of nature are not usually well described by the linear equations of a Cartesian coordinate system….The equations that describe the out structure and convolutions of brains must be parabolas, cycloids, cissoids, spirals, foliums [sic] exponentials, hyperboles, and the like. (p. 84)
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
g
General(stratum I)
The CHC taxonomy of cognitive abilities –
The three levels (stratum)Narrow
(stratum III)Broad
(stratum II)
Gf Gc Gwm
Glr Gv Ga Gs
Gc
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
Gf
Gc Gwm
Glr
Gv
Ga
Gs
GqGrw
g
I am going to be your guide for a “walk in the clouds” of human
cognitive abilities
The CHC model will be our map
The WJ IV COG (and OL)batteries will be our measures
The WJ IV Tests of Cognitive Ability & Beyond CHC Theory: Session Outline
1. Big picture overview: Conceptual, theoretical, organizational, and design principles behind the WJ IV COG
2. Show and tell: The new tests and the WJ IV COG clusters
3. “Dare to compare”--“regress for success:” Intracognitive variations and PSW Gf-Gc composite hybrid comparison procedures
4. Breaking Bad: The WJ IV COG/OL table of cognitive elements
5. “In god we trust…all others must show data:”—select COG tech. info.
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
Intelligence Testing Related
Research:Levels of
theoretical reductionism and
explanation
White matter tract organization,
integrity & efficiency
-rate of neural oscillations-neural synchronization-Reaction-time and temporal g-ERP’s (e.g., ABR)
PMA1
T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9T1 T12T10 T11
PMA2 PMA3 PMA4 …etc
…etc
G1 G2 G3
…etc
g ?
(Consensus Cattell-Horn-Carroll Hierarchical Three-Stratum Model)
-Human Connectome-Functional brain networks (Bressler & Menon, 2010)
-“Rich club” network hubs-P-FIT model
(Adapted from conceptual distinctions of Earl Hunt, 2011)
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
What is the current status of the CHC taxonomy?
How can this information be used to create or revise WJ IV tests?
Does the WJ IV data analyses suggest additions or revisions to CHC theory?
Key questions
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
The WJ IV COG psychometric model
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
Key questions
How can research at these
levels inform interpretation of
the WJ IV psychometric
model indicators (i.e., the tests)?
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
Time for the WJ IV COG new test “show and tell”
The “new kids (tests) on the block (COG)”
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
Oral Vocabulary
General Information
Number Series
Concept Formation
Verbal
Attention
Numbers Reversed
Story Recall
Visual-AudLearning
Visualization
Picture Recognition
Letter-Pat Match
Pair
Cancellation
Phon
Processing
Nonword
Repetition
Obj-Num
Sequencing
Analysis-Synthesis
Memory for Words
Number-Pat
Match
The final 18 WJ IV COG tests by CHC domain
Gc Glr Gv Ga GsGwmGf
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
WJ III test
New test
WJ III COG, DS or ACH test with new twist
COG Test 2: Number Series
• Was in WJ III Diagnostic Supplement• Gf-RQ (Quantitative Reasoning)• Not a “controlled learning” test as are Concept Formation (Gf-I) and Analysis-Synthesis (Gf-RG)
• More Gf “in the wild” – without examiner provided scaffolding• Extensive history as a premier Gf test in the psychometric measurement of intelligence• High in cognitive complexity and g. Best single test predictor of achievement. Best indicator of Gf factor.• In GIA, BIA, Gf-Gc Composite, Gf, Gf-Ext, Quantitative Reasoning (RQ), and one Math Aptitude clusters.
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 6-20-14
COG Test 3: Verbal Attention
• Measure of Gwm (working memory-WM; attentional control-AC)
• More ecological “real world” valid measure of working memory
• High in cognitive complexity and g. Within Gwm, the most cognitively complex, one of best indicators of Gwm factor, and best predictor of achievement
• In GIA, BIA, Gwm, Gwm3, Cognitive Efficiency, and one Reading and 1 Written Language Aptitude clusters.
Low
Degree of AttentionalControl (AC)
Memory for
Words
Sentence Repetition
Memory Span (MS)
Tests
High
Degree of Cognitive Complexity ( Cog. Load)
Working Memory
Capacity (WM)Tests
Numbers
Reversed
Understanding
Directions
Object-Number
Sequencing
Verbal
Attention
HighLow
© Institute for
Applied
Psychometrics;
Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
Via multiple regression,the other five Gwmtests (at ages 6-19)
predicted (R=.70) 49 % of Verbal Attention’s score variance. Aftertaking into account Verbal Attention’s
reliability, approximately 35% of
Verbal Attention’s reliable score variance is not accounted for by
the other five Gwm tests
There has been an explosion of research on auditory abilities since Carroll’s (1993) seminal work (Schneider & McGrew, 2012). A wide-ranging collection of Ga characteristics have been related to disorders of reading, speech, and language. For example, Ga abilities are now recognized as playing a pivotal scaffolding role in the development of language and general cognitive abilities (Conway, Pisoni, & Kronenberger, 2009).
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
Oral Vocabulary
General Information
Number Series
Concept Formation
Verbal
Attention
Numbers Reversed
Story Recall
Visual-AudLearning
Visualization
Picture Recognition
Letter-Pat Match
Pair
Cancellation
Obj-Num
Sequencing
Analysis-Synthesis
Memory for Words
Number-Pat
Match
The final 18 WJ IV COG tests by CHC domain
Gc Glr Gv
Phon
Processing
Nonword
Repetition
Ga GsGwmGf
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
WJ III test
New test
WJ III COG, DS or ACH test with new twist
COG Test 5: Phonological Processing
• Ga (PC) / Glr (LA/FW)•3 subtests (Word Access; Word Fluency; Substitution• Measures three aspects of speech sound processing that requires the efficient construction of sound-based lexical representations• High in cognitive complexity and g. Best single Ga test predictor of achievement. High loading on Ga and secondary low loading on Gc(accessing the lexicon). Also loaded on narrow LA factor in
broard+narrow bottom-up CFA models.• In GIA, Ga, and all reading and writing scholastic aptitude clusters
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 6-20-14
Examinee listens to a nonsense word and then must repeat the word exactly.
Requires temporary storage of phonological segments in immediate awareness.
Significant body of research has found such tasks to be significantly related to (and be possible “markers”of) reading disabilities, dyslexia and SLI (specific language impairment)
COG Test 12: Nonword Repetition
COG Test 4: Letter-Pattern Matching
• Measure of Gs (perceptual speed) and orthographic processing
• This speeded test (all WJ IV speeded tests) is based on a new rate-based method of scaling the scores that eliminates the need for bonus points
• Within Gs, it matches Number Pattern Matching in g, Gs factor loading, and prediction of achievement. Is more cognitively complex than Number Pattern Matching
• In GIA, Gs, Perceptual Speed (P), Cog. Eff. and Cog. clusters© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 6-20-14
COG Test 7: Visualization
• Measure of Gv-Visualization (Vz)
•Visualization consists of two subtests that each measure Gv-Vz(visualization) via tasks that vary on task complexity and degree of “minds eye” (mental rotation) manipulations
• Within Gv, highest on cognitive complexity, g, Gv factor, and prediction of achievement
• In GIA, Gv and both Math Aptitude clusters
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 6-20-14
OL Test 3: Segmentation
• Ga (PC)
• Examinee listens to words and identifies word parts
• In OL Phonetic Coding (PC) cluster
• Highest loading test on Ga factor across all ages
• A moderate measure of g and predictor of ach. across all ages; much more so (and more cognitively complex) than Sound Blending.
• Such tasks have been reported to be strong predictors of early reading (Bouwmeester et al, 2011; Geuden & Sandra, 2003)
The WJ IV Tests of Cognitive Ability & Beyond CHC Theory: Session Outline
1.Big picture overview: Conceptual, theoretical, organizational, and design principles behind the WJ IV COG
2. Show and tell: The new tests and the WJ IV COG clusters
3. “Dare to compare”--“regress for success:” Intracognitive variations and PSW Gf-Gc composite hybrid comparison procedures
4. Breaking Bad: The WJ IV COG/OL table of cognitive elements
5. “In god we trust…all others must show data:”—select COG tech. info.© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
Oral Vocabulary
General Information
Number Series
Concept Formation
Verbal
Attention
Numbers Reversed
Story Recall
Visual-AudLearning
Visualization
Picture Recognition
Letter-Pat Match
Pair
Cancellation
Phon
Processing
Nonword
Repetition
Obj-Num
Sequencing
Analysis-Synthesis
Memory for Words
Number-Pat
Match
The final 18 WJ IV COG tests by CHC domain
Gc Glr Gv Ga GsGwmGf
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
WJ III test
New test
WJ III COG, DS or ACH test with new twist
Gc Gwm Gs Ga Glr GvGf
Clusters available from Standard Cognitive easel
(10 tests)
(#) = # tests
Cognitive Efficiency (2)
Other clusters available by combining Standard Cognitive
tests with select tests from Extended Cognitive easel (8 tests)
Cognitive Efficiency (4)
Aud. Proc. (2)
LT Ret.(2)
VisualProc. (2)
Cog. Proc.Speed(2)
Fld. Reas.(2)
Cmp. Knw.(2)
ST Work. Mem. (2)
General Intellectual Ability – g (7)
Brief Intellectual Ability (3)
Gf+GcComposite (4)
Scholastic Aptitude Clusters (each a mix of 4 CHC abilities)
New
Aud. Proc. (2)
LT Ret.(2)
VisualProc. (2)
Cog. Proc.Speed(2)
Fld. Reas.(2)
Cmp. Knw.(2)
ST Work. Mem. (2)
ST Work. Mem. (3)
Cmp. Knw.(3)
Fld. Reas.(3)
Number Facility (2)
Perc.Speed(2)
Qnt. Reas.(2)
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
g
Gf Gc Gwm
Glr Gv Ga Gs
Gc
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP) Dr Kevin McGrew 4-11-14
Five primary design principles for WJ IV COG GIA
The WJ IV COG GIA cluster tests should:
1. Be the best factor indicators of each CHC broad domain
2. Be the best predictors of achievement from each CHC broad domain
3. Be the most cognitively complex indicators from each CHC broad domain
4. Be the best measures of g (general intelligence) from each CHC broad domain
5. Collectively should have a relatively equal balance of type of stimulus characteristics (verbal, numeric, figural)
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
WJ IV COG general ability clusters
BIA cluster
General Information
Concept Formation
Gf-Gc cluster
Gc Glr Gv Ga GsGwmGf
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
WJ III test
New test
WJ III COG, DS or ACH test with new twist
Oral Vocabulary
Number Series
Verbal
AttentionStory Recall Visualization
Letter-Pat Match
Phon
Processing
GIA cluster g
WJ IV COG GIA cluster
.77 .76 .68 .63 .60 .75 .61
GIA test g-loadings (PCA: ages 6-19)
Gc Glr Gv Ga GsGwmGf
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics;
Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
Oral Vocabulary
Number Series
Verbal
AttentionStory Recall Visualization
Letter-Pat Match
Phon
Processing
GIA cluster g
WJ IV COG GIA cluster
Gc Glr Gv Ga GsGwmGf
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
Oral Vocabulary
Number Series
Verbal
AttentionStory Recall Visualization
Letter-Pat Match
Phon
Processing
GIA cluster g
.18 .17 .14 .12 .12 .17 .11
Median test g-weights for GIA cluster
g
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
Gf Gwm
Glr Gv Ga Gs
Gc
Oral Vocabulary
General Information
Number Series
Concept Formation
Verbal
Attention
Numbers Reversed
Story Recall
Visual-AudLearning
Visualization
Picture Recognition
Letter-Pat Match
Pair
Cancellation
Phon
Processing
Nonword
Repetition
The WJ IV Cognitive CHC broad ability clusters
Gc Glr Gv Ga GsGwmGf
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
Oral Vocabulary
General Information
Number Series
Concept Formation
Verbal
Attention
Numbers Reversed
The WJ IV Cognitive CHC “extended” broad ability clusters
Picture Vocabulary
Analysis-Synthesis
Obj-Num
Sequencing
Oral Language battery
Gc Glr Gv Ga GsGwmGf
g
Gf Gc Gwm
Glr Gv Ga Gs
Gc
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP) Dr Kevin McGrew 4-11-14
The primary action is at the narrow ability level
The WJ IV narrow CHC ability clusters
QuantitativeReas (RQ)
Speed ofLex Access (LA)
PhoneticCoding (PC)
PerceptualSpeed (P)
Number Series
Letter-Pat Match
Oral Language battery
Picture Vocabulary
Picture Vocabulary
Sound Blending
SegmentationOral Language battery
Retrieval
Fluency
Rapid Picture Naming
Analysis-Synthesis
Aud Mem Span (MS)
Memory for Words
Number-Pat
Match
Oral Vocabulary
Vocabulary(VL)
Gc Glr Gv Ga GsGwmGf
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
Number-Pat
Match
The WJ IV COG clinical clusters and one more CHC narrow ability cluster
Number Facility (N)
Numbers Reversed
Gf Glr Gv Ga GsGwmGc
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
The WJ IV narrow CHC ability clusters(those available when OL battery used)
Speed ofLex Access (LA)
PhoneticCoding (PC)
Oral Language battery
Picture Vocabulary
Picture Vocabulary
Sound Blending
SegmentationOral Language battery
Retrieval
Fluency
Rapid Picture Naming
Aud MemSpan (MS)
Memory for Words
Oral Vocabulary
Vocabulary(VL)
Oral Comp
Understanding Directions Listening
Ability (LS)
Gc Glr Gv Ga GsGwmGc
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
Perc SpdP (2)
Qnt ReasRQ (2)
VocabVL (2)
List AblLS (2)
AMemSpMS (2)
Sp Lex AcMS (2)
Num FacN (2)
Phon CodPC (2)
Narrow CHC ability clusters (8)
Aud Proc(2)
LT Ret(2)
VisualProc (2)
Cog ProcSpeed(2)
Fld Reas(2)
CmpKnw(2)
ST Work Mem (2)
ST Work Mem (3)
CmpKnw(3)
Fld Reas(3) Broad CHC ability clusters (10)
Gf Gs Ga Glr GvGwmGc
WJ IV CHC broad and narrow ability clusters
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
Gc Gwm Gs Ga Glr GvGf
WJ IV Scholastic Aptitude Cluster Organization
Visualization(Vz)
NumbersReversed
(WM)
OralVocabulary
(LD/VL)
Analysis-Synthesis(RG/RQ)
PairCancellation
(P/EF)
Visualization(Vz)
Oral Vocabulary
(LD/VL)
NumberSeries (RQ)
Num PatternMatching
(P)
PhonologicalProcessing
(PC)
OralVocabulary
(LV/VL)
VerbalAttention
(WM)
Num PatternMatching
(P)
PhonologicalProcessing
(PC)
OralVocabulary
(LD/VL)
VerbalAttention
(WM)
Num PatternMatching
(P)
PhonologicalProcessing
(PC)
OralVocabulary
(LV/VL)
Story Recall(MM)
Num PatternMatching
(P)
PhonologicalProcessing
(PC)
OralVocabulary
(LD/VL)
Concept Formation
(I)
ReadingBroad ReadingReading CompReading Comp-ExtReading FluencyReading Rate
Basic Rdg Skills
WritingBroad WritingWritten Expression
Basic Writing Skills
MathBroad MathMath Calc Skills
Math Prob Solving
WJ IV Ach Clusters
Grw/Gq domain general
Grw domain specific
Gq domain specific
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
One WJ IV design objective was to use the most contemporary
measurement model of an evolving CHC theory of human cognitive
abilities
“Beyond CHC” – CHC plus contemporary neurocognitive and information processing
research
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
Evolution of CHC Theory in the WJ IV
•WJ (1977): Scientific-Empirical (pragmatic)
•WJ-R (1989): Extended Cattell-Horn Gf-Gc Theory
•WJ III (2001): CHC Theory
•WJ IV (2014): Beyond CHC Theory
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
Intelligence Testing Related
Research:Levels of
theoretical reductionism and
explanation
White matter tract organization,
integrity & efficiency
-rate of neural oscillations-neural synchronization-Reaction-time and temporal g-ERP’s (e.g., ABR)
PMA1
T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9T1 T12T10 T11
PMA2 PMA3 PMA4 …etc
…etc
G1 G2 G3
…etc
g ?
(Consensus Cattell-Horn-Carroll Hierarchical Three-Stratum Model)
-Human Connectome-Functional brain networks (Bressler & Menon, 2010)
-“Rich club” network hubs-P-FIT model
(Adapted from conceptual distinctions of Earl Hunt, 2011)
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
The WJ IV COG psychometric model
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
Key questions
How can research at these
levels inform interpretation of
the WJ IV psychometric
model indicators (i.e., the tests)?
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
CHC Theory Described and Refined (v2.5)
Gsm has been renamed Gwm at the round table of cognitive CHC abilities
During the past two decades, and the last decade in particular, cognitive neuroscience has indicated that the more narrow Gsm definition was outdated and incorrect (Dehn, 2008).
Working memory refers to a dynamic, temporary storage system that allows information to be held immediate awareness and be manipulated.
Working memory refers to individual differences in both the capacity (size) of primary memory and to the efficiency of attentional control mechanisms that manipulate information within primary memory.
Short-term memory refers to tasks that involve significant storage but only minimal processing or manipulation.
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
Attentional Control (AC). The ability to focus on task-relevant stimuli and ignore task-irrelevant stimuli. The ability to regulate intentionality and direct cognitive processing. Sometimes referred to as spotlight or focal attention, focus, control of attention, executive controlled attention or executive attention.
Memory for Sound Patterns (UM). Ability to retain (on a short-term basis) auditory codes such as tones, tonal patterns, or speech sounds.
Speed of Lexical Access (LA). Ability to rapidly and fluently retrieve words from an individual's lexicon; verbal efficiency or automaticity of lexical access.
Word Fluency (FW). Ability to rapidly produce words that share a phonological (e.g., fluency of retrieval of words via a phonological cue) or semantic feature (e.g., fluency of retrieval of words via a meaning-based representation). Also includes the ability to rapidly produce words that share non-semantic features (e.g., fluency of retrieval of words starting with the letter “T”.
Proposed changes/additions to CHC narrow ability taxonomy
The CHC abilities of attentional
control (AC) and speed of lexical access (LA) (and
the WJ IV tests of these abilities)
draw from these three levels
Working Memory
Long-Term Memory
Storage Retrieval
Central Executive (Executive
functions or control?
• Inhibit•Shift•Update
PerceptionSensation
Efficiency of Attentional Control = Working Memory Capacity Complex cognitive processing.
????
Focus of Attention
Information processing(mechanical models)
Central Executive (Executive
functions or control?
• Inhibit•Shift•Update
Working Memory
Focus ofattention
•Focus•Attentional Control
•Working Memory•Executive Functioning
Executive control theory
Hunt (2011) refers to this as the working memory—attention
complex
Information processing(mechanical models)
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics, Dr. Kevin
S. McGrew, 012314
Attention
Motor Power, Speed & Timing
(Gp,Gps)
(feedback loop)
Central Executive
Working Memory Capacity (WMC) = Efficiency of Attentional Control
(AC)
Gs=Attentional Fluency
Learning (storage) efficiency (Glr)
Retrieval fluency (Glr)
Focus of Attention
Short-Term Working Memory (Gwm)
Sensory & PerceptualSystems
Gf = Complexity of Reasoningwithin Working Memory
(feedback loop)
Beyond CHC TheoryAdapted from Schneider & McGrew
(2012, 2013)
Visual (Gv)
Auditory (Ga)
Tactile (Gh)
Kinesthetic (Gk)
Olfactory (Go)
Motor Control
(Note: e.g.., Gv, Ga, etc. are not simple visual perceptual or sensory processing but the complexity of visual processing that a person can handle)
Gt = Speed of Elem.Perc. Processing
Cognitive Processing Speed (Gs)
Acquired Knowledge Systems (aka, long-term memory)
Etc. (what)
Etc. (how)
Etc. (what)
Etc. (how)
Motor Sequences
(what)
Motor Sequences
(how)
Grw (what)
Grw(how)
Gc(what)
Gc (how)
Nonverbal (e.g., motor)
Cognitive
Environmental Input
Includes both tacit andexplicit knowledge systems;
declarative (what) and procedural (how) knowledge
Cognitive performance
Motor performance
Information processing(mechanical models)
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics, Dr. Kevin
S. McGrew, 012314
The working memory-attentional complex system is a resource limited (constrained) system: The information “bottleneck”
Information processing(mechanical models)
Motor Power, Speed & Timing
(Gp,Gps)
(feedback loop)
Learning (storage) efficiency (Glr)
Retrieval fluency (Glr)
Sensory & PerceptualSystems
(feedback loop)
Beyond CHC TheoryAdapted from Schneider & McGrew
(2012, 2013)
Visual (Gv)
Auditory (Ga)
Tactile (Gh)
Kinesthetic (Gk)
Olfactory (Go)
Motor Control
(Note: e.g.., Gv, Ga, etc. are not simple visual perceptual or sensory processing but the complexity of visual processing that a person can handle)
Gt = Speed of Elem.Perc. Processing
Cognitive Processing Speed (Gs)
Acquired Knowledge Systems (aka, long-term memory)
Etc. (what)
Etc. (how)
Etc. (what)
Etc. (how)
Motor Sequences
(what)
Motor Sequences
(how)
Grw (what)
Grw(how)
Gc(what)
Gc (how)
Nonverbal (e.g., motor)
Cognitive
Environmental Input
Cognitive performance
Motor performance
Information processing(mechanical models)
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics, Dr. Kevin
S. McGrew, 012314
(Parameters are median values across 6 WJ IV age groups: Broad+narrow bottom-up model)
Lexical Access
(LA)
Gc
Gc tests
.43
Gwm
Gwm tests
.48
Retrieval Fluency
.71
Phonological Processing
.40
Ga
Rapid Picture Naming
.41
Gs
Speed of Lexical Access (LA). Ability to rapidly and
fluently retrieve words from an individual's lexicon;
verbal efficiency or automaticity of lexical
access.
Gc/Gwm (broad) influenced Speed of LexicalAccess (LA) narrow factor
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
Auditory Processing (Ga) abilities should no longer be considered the Rodney Dangerfield of CHC abilities
School psych. and SLD have had a myopic “lamp post-search ” blinder focus on only one part of the very broad domain of Ga
There has been an explosion of research (since Carroll’s 1993 treatise) that has identified potentially new important and cognitively complex Ga narrow abilities
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
Remember that there was a paucity of Ga factor studies when Carroll completed his 1993 treatise
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 06-20-14
The WJ IV Auditory Processing (Ga) cluster is not your father's Ga measure
WJ IV still has the Oldsmobile Ga (Phonetic Coding) in OL: COG now has more cognitively
complex Ga measures
The WJ IV has taken a broader contemporary view of the domain of Ga
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
Auditory Processing (Ga) abilities, when properly measured, should have a prominent chair at the
roundtable of cognitive CHC abilities
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
Loadings on first unrotated common factor
CommunalityEstimates
Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI) 0.809 0.654
Auditory Processing (Ga) 0.804 0.646
Fluid Reasoning (Gf) 0.804 0.646
Perceptual Reasoning Index (PRI) 0.800 0.639
Comprehension-Knowledge (Gc) 0.779 0.607
Short-Term Work. Memory (Gwm) 0.764 0.584
Working Memory Index (WMI) 0.749 0.562
Long-Term Retrieval (Glr) 0.683 0.466
Visual Processing (Gv) 0.604 0.365
Processing Speed Index (PSI) 0.569 0.323
Cog. Processing Speed (Gs) 0.537 0.288
1-factor (unrotated) common-factor solution for WJ IV COG / WISC-IV composite scores (n=173)
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
-2 -1 0 1 2
-2
-1
0
1
2
GIA
GC
GF
GWM
GS
GA
GLR
GV
VCI
PRI WMIPSI
2 MDS solution for WJ IV / WISC-IVcomposite and g-scores (n=173)
•The WJ IV GIA score is as good (better?) a measure of general intelligence (g) as the WISC-IV FS IQ when defined by g-loadings and MDS cognitive complexity analysis.
• The WJ IV Ga cluster is a measure of complex cognitive abilities; comparable to WJ IV & WISC-IV Gf/PRI composites.
•The WJ IV measures cognitive abilities not represented in the WISC-IV (Ga, Glr, and possibly Gv).
Measures closer to the center of the radex of more cognitively
complex
FSIQ
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
One WJ IV design objective was to increase the cognitive complexity requirements for
selected tests and clusters to provide greater ecological validity and interpretive relevance
of the measures.
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
What is cognitive complexity?
CHC factor breadth
Degree of g-loading
Complicated(Does not
necessarily equal)
Factorial complexity
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
Cognitive complexity
• Increase the information processing demands of the tests within a specific narrow CHC domain.
• Not to be confused with factorial complexity• Design tests that place greater demands on:
• Cognitive information processing (cognitive load)• Greater allocation of key cognitive resources (working
memory or attentional control)• The involvement of more cognitive control or executive
functions
WJ IV cognitive complexity design approach based on work of Lohman & Larkin (2011)
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
Approach 1. Increasing the cognitive complexity of a test is often accomplished by making the test a mixed measure of more than one narrow CHC ability (factorially complex mixed CHC measures)
One design objective in the WJ IV was to increase the cognitive complexity requirements for
selected tests and clusters to provide greater ecological validity and interpretive relevance of
the measures.
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
Most contemporary CHC designed individual tests have focused on developing relatively pure measures of each cognitive ability (mental pulley)
Gf Gwm Ga Gv
Gc Gs Glr
Analogy: Think of general intelligence (g) as a system of relatively independent cognitive abilities (relatively construct “pure” pulleys)
working together to deal with a specific cognitive task load
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
In this approach a test is designed to be a mixed measure of two (or more) cognitive abilities (mental pulleys; Gf + Gv)
Gf + Gv
Gf + Gv Gwm Gs Ga Glr Gc
Approach 1 to developing cognitively complex tests: Construct factorially complex measures (a system of pulleys from 2 or
more domain functions working in combination).
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
Gf + Gv
Gf + Gwm + Gc + Gq Ga Glr Gv
Approach 1 example
Wechsler Arithmetic test
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
One design objective in the WJ IV was to increase the cognitive complexity requirements for selected tests and
clusters to provide greater ecological validity and interpretive relevance of the measures.
Approach 2. A second approach is to increase the complexity of information processing demands of the tests within a specific narrow CHC domain (Lohman & Larkin, 2011; McGrew, 2012). This second form of cognitive complexity, not to be confused with factorial complexity, places greater demands on cognitive information processing (cognitive load), requires greater allocation of key cognitive resources (working memory or attentional control), and invokes the involvement of more cognitive control or executive functions (Arend, Colom, Botella, Contreras, Rubio, & Santacreu, 2003; Jensen, 2011; Lohman & Larkin, 2011; Marshalek, Lohman, & Snow; 1983). This second approach to increasing test cognitive complexity was a primary design principle for the WJ IV.
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
Ga Gv Gwm Gs Gf Glr Gc
Approach 2 is to increase the complexity of information processing demands of the tests within a specific CHC cognitive functional domain. Tasks are still as relatively pure a measure of the CHC domain as possible but there is a deliberate increase in the number of “mini-pulleys” (cognitive information component complexity) that work together within the CHC domain. This was the primary approach used for certain WJ IV tests.
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
The WJ IV COG is not your father’s intelligence test!
The WJ IV COG GIA is a much more cognitively complex (and high g) measure of intelligence
How did we do this?
What evidence do we have to support this conclusion?© Institute for Applied Psychometrics;
Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
• Which 7 tests should be combined for the GIA (g) cluster?
• Which 2 tests from each CHC factor domain should be combined for the 7 CHC factor clusters?
Two major COG
design questions
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
GIA -Standard
GIAOral Vocabulary
General Information
Number Series
Concept Formation
Verbal
Attention
Numbers Reversed
Story Recall
Visual-AudLearning
Visualization
Picture Recognition
Letter-Pat. Match.
Pair
Canc.
Phon.
Processing
Nonword
Repetition
Primary WJ III and WJ IV COG tests and Clusters
Tests in WJ IV COG clusters
Tests in WJ III COG Clusters
WJ IV GIA
WJ III GIA-Standard
* Visual Matching is renamed Number-Pattern Matching in WJ IV
Comparison of composition of primary WJ III and WJ IV COG CHC and GIA clusters
(WJ III Spatial Relations is half of
WJ IV Visualization)
(WJ IV Oral Vocab. was part of WJ III Verbal
Comp.)
Auditory Attention
Decision
Speed
Analysis-Synthesis
Retrieval
Fluency
Spatial
Relations
Verbal Comp.
Memory for Words
Sound
Blending
Visual
Matching *
Gc Gwm GsGaGlr GvGf
g
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
WISC-IV WAIS-IV WPPSI-III KABC-II SB-5 DAS-IIFS IQ FS IQ FS IQ FCI FS IQ GCA
(n=174) (n=177) (n=99) (n=50) (n = 50) (n = 49)WJ IV g-measures
General Intellectual Ability (GIA) 0.86 0.84 0.72 0.77 0.80 0.83
Brief Intellectual Ability (BIA) 0.83 0.74 0.76 0.79
Gf-Gc Composite 0.83 0.78 0.71 0.82
Select concurrent validity evidence: Correlations of WJ IV primary COG g-scores with external measures
Conclusion: The WJ IV GIA, BIA and Gf-Gc composite clusters demonstrate strong validity evidence as measures of general intelligence when the criterion are the global composite/total scores from other major IQ batteries in the field
WJ III GIA other IQ score correlations were from .67 to .76
Common factor loadings
CommunalityEstimates
ORLVOC 0.73 0.54PHNPRO 0.71 0.51OBJNUM 0.69 0.48ORLCMP 0.67 0.45SNDAWR 0.66 0.43UNDDIR 0.64 0.41VRBATN 0.63 0.40CONFRM 0.63 0.40PICVOC 0.63 0.39MEMWRD 0.61 0.37NUMSER 0.61 0.37ANLSYN 0.59 0.35NUMREV 0.59 0.35VISUAL 0.58 0.34SEGMNT 0.58 0.34SENREP 0.58 0.34GENINF 0.57 0.32STYREC 0.56 0.32NWDREP 0.55 0.31RETFLU 0.54 0.30LETPAT 0.53 0.28SNDBLN 0.51 0.26NUMPAT 0.50 0.25VAL 0.49 0.24RPCNAM 0.48 0.23PAIRCN 0.47 0.22PICREC 0.44 0.20
Single common factor (g-factor)
extracted from 27 WJ IV / WISC-IV
tests (n=173)
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
Common factor loadings
CommunalityEstimates
ORLVOC 0.73 0.54
VISUAL 0.58 0.34
PHNPRO 0.71 0.51SNDBLN 0.51 0.26
STYREC 0.56 0.32VAL 0.49 0.24
VRBATN 0.63 0.40NUMREV 0.59 0.35
CONFRM 0.63 0.40NUMSER 0.61 0.37
LETPAT 0.53 0.28NUMPAT 0.50 0.25
DK ?
DK ?
+25% -- A factor of 2.0 more
+08% -- A factor of 1.3 more
+05% -- A factor of 1.1 more
-03%
+03%
5 of the 7 corresponding WJ IV GIA CHC tests
collectively share 41% more variance with
psychometric g (than the WJ III GIA tests)
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
• Which 7 tests should be combined for the GIA (g) cluster?
• Which 2 tests from each CHC factor domain should be combined for the 7 CHC factor clusters?
Two major COG
design questions
© Institute for
Applied
Psychometrics;
Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
The Cognitive tests were evaluated on the basis of four (of five total) quantifiable COG design criteria
Data augmented by Siskel and Ebert informal rating system
Average CHC factor loadings
Average achievement correlation across domains
Average degree of g-loadings
Average degree of relative cognitive complexity
(Average across ages 6-90+)© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
Comprehension – Knowledge(Gc)
Language Dev.(LD)
General Information(K0)
Lexical Knowledge(VL)
ORLVOC* GENINFPICVOC
* Test in GIA
Author/expertCHC narrow factor
classifications
(Gc cluster)(Voc. Cluster-
LD/VL)
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
Induction(I)
General SequentialReasoning (RG)
QuantitativeReasoning (RQ)
ANLSYNCONFRMNUMSER* (Gf cluster)(Gf-Extcluster)
(Quantitative Reasoning Cluster-RQ)
* Test in GIA
Fluid Reasoning(Gf)
Author/expertCHC narrow
factor classifications
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
Cognitive Processing Speed(Gs)
Attentional Control (AC)
PerceptualSpeed (P)
PAIRCNNUMPATLETPAT*
* Test in GIA
Short-Term Working Memory (Gwm)
(Gs cluster)
(Perceptual Speed cluster-P)
Author/expertCHC narrow
factor classifications
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
Short-Term WorkingMemory (Gwm)
Work. MemoryCapacity (WM)
Memory Span(MS)
Attentional Control(AC)
MEMWRD
SENREP
(Auditory MemorySpan Cluster-MS)
OBJNUMVRBATN* NUMREV
* Test in GIA
(Gwm cluster)
(Gwm-Ext cluster)
Author/expertCHC narrow
factor classifications
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
LearningEfficiency
RetrievalFluency
Long-Term Retrieval(Glr)
* Test in GIA
VALSTREC* (Glr cluster)
AssociativeMemory (MA)
MeaningfulMemory (MM)
Speed of LexicalAccess (LA)
RETFLURPCNAM (Speed of Lexical
Access cluster-LA)
Author/expertCHC narrow
factor classifications
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
AuditoryProcessing (Ga)
PhoneticCoding (PC)
NWDREPPHNPRO*
* Test in GIA
Short-Term Working Memory (Gwm)
Memory for Sound Patterns (UM)
SEGMNT SNDBLN
(Ga cluster)
(Phonetic Coding cluster-PC)
Author/expertCHC narrow
factor classifications
Memory Span (MS)
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
Nonword Repetition
(PC/UM-MS)
Phonological Processing
(PC/Glr-LA)
Sound Awareness
(PC)
Sound Blending
(PC)
Segmentation
(PC)
Auditory Processing (Ga)
Short Term
Wrk Mem (Gwm)
Most complex
Least complex
COG
OL
An auditory processing battery ?
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
Visual Processing(Gv)
Visual Memory(MV)
Visualization(Vz)
* Test in GIA
PICRECVISUAL* (Gv cluster)
Author/expertCHC narrow
factor classifications
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
The WJ IV Tests of Cognitive Ability & Beyond CHC Theory: Session Outline
1. Big picture overview: Conceptual, theoretical, organizational, and design principles behind the WJ IV COG
2. Show and tell: The new tests and the WJ IV COG clusters
3. “Dare to compare”--“regress for success:” Intracognitivevariations and PSW Gf-Gc composite hybrid comparison procedures
4. Breaking Bad: The WJ IV COG/OL table of cognitive elements
5. “In god we trust…all others must show data:”—select COG tech. info.
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
All WJ IV Comparison and variation procedures are grounded in a
common statistical model
Note: All score distributions represent real scores for all 9-13 year old norming subjects from
WJ IV co-normed sample. Actual
prediction models vary by age or grade (developmentally shifting prediction models).
Note: The SD of predicted and difference score distributions
are not 15. They would only be 15 if GIA/Brd. Rdg. correlation
was perfect (1.0).
Illustration of procedures used to develop ALL WJ IV variation/comparison difference (standard score) norms (GIA-Broad Reading ACH example)
-E
(minus)
B Actual Broad Reading scores
in WJ IV norm data
40 80 120 160100 14060
-1 to +1 SD
SD = 15
AGeneral Intellectual
Ability (GIA) scores in WJ IV norm data (predictor score)
40
80
12
01
60
10
01
40
60
-1 t
o +
1
SDSD
= 1
5
=(equals)
FDistribution of Actual-Predicted GIA/Broad Reading Difference
Scores in WJ IV norm data
(SD of difference
score distribution allows for
specification & evaluation of significant S/W with SD
and PRmetrics)
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
-1 to +1SD
SD = 10.8
D Predicted (criterion)
Broad Reading scores in WJ IV norm data
40 80 120 160100 14060
-1 to +1 SD
SD = 11.6
Comparison Options
• GIA/Achievement
• Scholastic Aptitude/Achievement
• Gf-Gc/Achievement/other cog.-ling. abilities
• Broad Oral Language/Achievement
• Academic Knowledge/Achievement
Five ability/achievement difference score procedures to help compare ability to current levels of achievement
[Procedures account for regression-to-the mean (and how it varies by age)]
(Third method PSW SLD models)
Variation Options
• Intra-cognitive based on COG Tests 1—7
• Intra-achievement • Based on ACH Tests 1—6
• Based on Academic Skills, Academic Fluency, and Academic Applications clusters
• Intra-oral language based on OL Tests 1—4
Four variation procedures to help document an individual’s pattern of strengths and weaknesses.
Based on “core” tests in each battery
The WJ IV Gf-Gc comparison procedure has clear implications for operationalizing this model
Common elements of third-method pattern of strength and weakness (PSW) approach to SLD identification (Flanagan et al.)
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 06-18-14
Math (Gq)
Reading (Grw)
Writing
(Grw)
Other CHC cog abilities
Oral Lang.
abilities
Possible strength
and weakness
target domains
Conceptual summary of new WJ IV Gf-Gc strength and weakness comparison procedure and options
These are perceptual/processing andcognitive efficiency CHC abilities asper Schneider and McGrew (2012)
Gf-GcComposite(predictor)
Cattell’s “provincial powers”(king and queen of intelligence)
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
GlrGsmGfGs Gt
General SpeedMemory
Domain-Independent General Capacities
Acquired Knowledge
Gkn
GqGrw
Gc GpGh
Sensory
Sensory-Motor Domain-Specific Abilities
Motor
Parameters of Cognitive Efficiency
GaGo
Gv
Gk
Gps
Conceptual Grouping
Functional Grouping
Proposed changes in functional and conceptual organization of broad CHC ability domains (Schneider & McGrew, 2012)
These are perceptual/processing andcognitive efficiency CHC abilities asper Schneider and McGrew (2012)Cattell’s “provincial powers”
(king and queen of intelligence)
(Possible criterion or predicted target scores)
Gf-Gc “hybrid” procedure
Predicted Target Cluster
Score
Regression-based prediction models that account for
regression-to-the-mean
Gf-Gc Composite(Predictor score)
GcGf
WJ IV Gf-Gc cognitive Ability cluster
Grw Gq
Brief Achievement
Academic Skills
Academic Fluency
Academic Applications
Broad Achievement
Reading
Brd. Rdg.
Rdg. Flu.
Bas. Rdg. Sk.
Rdg. Cmp.(& Ext)
Rdg. Rate
Wr. Lng.
Brd. Wr. Lg.
Bas. Wr. Sk.
Wr. Exp.
Phn.-Grp.Kn.
Math.
Brd. Math
Math Cal.Sk.
Math Pr. Slv.
CHC achievement abilities and WJ IV clusters
Phon. Cod. Sp. Lx. Acc.
ST Wk. Mem.(&Ext)
Cog .Pr.Spd. LT Retrieval Visual Proc.Aud. Proc.
Perc. Spd.
Cognitive Efficiency (& Ext)
Aud. Mm. Sp.
Other CHC broad/narrow cognitive and orallanguage abilities and WJ IV clusters
Gwm Gs Ga Glr Gv
Number Facility
(equals)
SD and PR for calculateddifference score
Difference Score
(Compare to distribution of difference scores in WJ IV norm sample to determine significant
strength or weakness)
Actual Target Cluster Score(minus)
Back to comparison menu
Gf (Other): Average of other (non-Gf) 6 core tests
GcGf
NumberSeries
Gwm Gs Ga Glr
OralVocabulary
VerbalAttention
Letter-Pat.Matching
Phono.Processing
StoryRecall
Visual-ization
PredictedNum. Series
NumberSeries
-(minus)
=(equals)
DifferenceScore
SD and PR for calculated difference scores
(Compare difference score to distribution of difference
scores in WJ IV norm sample to determine significant strength or weakness)
ConceptFormation
Analysis-Synthesis
FluidReasoning
FluidReason-Ext
Quant.Reasoning
NumberMatrices
Other Gf tests Other Gf clustersThe same Gf (Other) score is used to evaluate obtained-predicted difference scores for any other optional Gf test or cluster that is available after testing.
Procedure is repeated for each CHC domain—each CHC core test removed and relevant “other” average computed, etc.
Similar procedures available for OL and ACH based on each batteries core tests and optional tests and clusters.
OralVocabulary
VerbalAttention
Letter-Pat.Matching
Phono.Processing
StoryRecall
Visual-ization
Core cognitive tests for intra-cognitive variation procedure
Explanation of WJ-IV intra-variation procedure: Cognitive example
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 06-18-14
Gv
General Intellectual Ability (GIA) cluster (Predictor score)
General Intellectual Ability (GIA) /Achievement comparison procedure
Gwm Gs Ga Glr GvGcGf
CHC Cognitive Abilities and WJ IV COG and OL Clusters
Regression-based prediction models that account for regression-to-the-mean (and how it varies by age)
Predicted Target
Cluster Score
Actual Target Cluster Score(minus) (equals)
Difference Score
SD and PR for calculated difference score
(Compare to distribution of difference scores in WJ IV
norm sample to determine significant strength or
weakness)
Oral Language
Grw Gq
Brief Achievement
Academic Skills
Academic Fluency
Academic Applications
Broad Achievement
Reading
Brd. Rdg.
Rdg. Flu.
Bas. Rdg. Sk.
Rdg. Cmp.(& Ext)
Rdg. Rate
Wr. Lng.
Brd. Wr. Lg.
Bas. Wr. Sk.
Wr. Exp.
Phn.-Grp.Kn.
Math.
Brd. Math
Math Cal.Sk.
Math Pr. Slv.
(Possible criterion or predicted target scores)Broad Oral Language
Oral Expression
Listening Comprehension
CHC Achievement Abilities and WJ IV
clusters
Academic Knowledge
CHC Cognitive Abilities and WJ IV COG and OL Clusters
Gwm Gs Ga Glr GvGcGf
Oral Language/Achievement comparison procedure
SD and PR for calculated
difference scores
(Compare to distribution of difference scores in WJ IV
norm sample to determine significant strength or
weakness)
Broad Oral Language *
(Predictor score)
Sp. Lx. Acc.Phon. Cod.
(Possible criterion or predicted target scores)
Regression-based prediction models
that account for regression-to-the-mean (and how it
varies by age)Predicted
Target Cluster Score
Actual Target Cluster Score(minus) (equals)
Difference Score
Academic Skills
Academic Fluency
Academic Applications
Brd. Rdg.
Rdg. Flu.
Bas. Rdg. Sk.
Rdg. Cmp.(& Ext)
Rdg. Rate
Wr. Lng.
Brd. Wr. Lg.
Bas. Wr. Sk.
Wr. Exp.
Phn.-Grp.Kn.
Brd. Math
Math Cal.Sk.
Math Pr. Slv.
Reading Math.
Grw Gq
CHC Achievement Abilities and WJ IV ACH clusters
(Possible criterion or predicted
target scores)
Academic Knowledge(* English or Spanish)
Back to comparison menu
Grw Gq
Brief Achievement
Academic Skills
Academic Fluency
Academic Applications
Broad Achievement
Reading
Brd. Rdg.
Rdg. Flu.
Bas. Rdg. Sk.
Rdg. Cmp.(& Ext)
Rdg. Rate
Wr. Lng.
Brd. Wr. Lg.
Bas. Wr. Sk.
Wr. Exp.
Math.
Brd. Math
Math Cal.Sk.
Math Pr. Slv.
CHC achievement abilities and WJ IV clusters
Academic Knowledge(Predictor
score)
Academic Knowledge/Achievement comparison procedure
Predicted Target Cluster
Score
Actual Target Cluster Score(minus) (equals)
SD and PR for calculated difference score
Difference Score
(Possible criterion or predicted target scores)
(Compare to distribution of difference scores in WJ IV norm sample to determine significant
strength or weakness)
Gwm Gs Ga Glr GvGcGf
CHC cognitive abilities and WJ IV cognitive and oral language clusters
Sp. Lx. Acc.Phon. Cod.
Regression-based prediction models that account for regression-to-the-mean
Back to comparison menu
The WJ IV Tests of Cognitive Ability & Beyond CHC Theory: Session Outline
1. Big picture overview: Conceptual, theoretical, organizational, and design principles behind the WJ IV COG
2. Show and tell: The new tests and the WJ IV COG clusters
3. “Dare to compare”--“regress for success:” Intracognitive variations and PSW Gf-Gc composite hybrid comparison procedures
4. Breaking Bad: The WJ IV COG/OL table of cognitive elements
5. “In god we trust…all others must show data:”—select COG tech. info.
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
OM
PC US UM U8 URU1U9
UP UL
Vz SR MV CS SS CF IM PI LE IL PN
Sen
sory
-Mo
tor
Do
mai
n-
Spec
ific
Ab
iliti
es
Sensory
The CHC Periodic Table of Human
Abilities
Adapted from Schneider & McGrew (2012) and McGrew, LaForte and Schrank (2014)
I RG RQ
WM MS AC
R3 PT MT
P N R9
R1 R2 R4 R7 IT
MA MM M6 FI FA FE SP F0 NA FW LA FF FX
Ideas Words Figures
Do
mai
n-I
nd
epen
den
t C
apac
itie
sGlr-Learning efficiency
Glr-Retrieval fluency
Broad ability
Narrow ability
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP)Dr. Kevin McGrew 3-28-14
KM A3
LD VL K0 LS CM MY
KL K1 A5 MK KF LP BC
V RD RC RS WA SG EU WS
Acq
uir
ed K
no
wle
dge
Syst
ems
K2
PI P2 P3 P4 P6 P7 A1
U1U9
UP UL
Motor
For fun: Available atwww.iqscorner.com
•Relative degree of cognitive complexity:High Medium (M/M) Low
•CHC broad factor loading
•Test name abbreviation
•CHC narrow ability code(s)
Te
Go
All information based on analysis of WJ IV norm
data from ages 6 thru 19
•BIS (modified) content/stimuluscharacteristic
NumSeries
(RQ)
.91 .62 H .80
•g-loading
•Reliability
#
.62 .73 .63•Median correlations with R, M, W
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP)Dr. Kevin McGrew 3-28-14
.78
.75
.71
.60
.71
.66
.76
OralCmp
(LS)PicVoc
(VL)
.82 .69 M .76 .81 .65 M .82
RpdPcNm
(NA)RetFlu
(FI)
.80 .57 M .42 .85 .51 L .24
SndAwr
(PC)Segment.
(PC)SndBlnd
(PC)
.71 .67 H .52 .93 .60 M.74 .88 .53 L .62
SenRep
(MS/LS)
.83 .60 M .48UndDir
(WM)
.86 .66 M .64
CO
G C
HC
clu
ster
g-l
oa
din
gs
NumSeries
(RQ)
ConFrm
(I)
AnlSyn
(RG)
.91 .62 H .80 .92 .62 M .62.90 .65 M .66
OralVoc
(LD/VL)GenInfo
(K0)
.89 .74 H .86 .84 .59 M .78
StryRec
(MM)VisAudLrg
(MA)
.93 .58 M .54 .96 .52 L .48
LetPtMat
(P)NumPtMat
(P)PairCan
(P/AC)
.90 .55 M .77 .89 .49 L .60.84 .53 M .80
Visual.
(Vz)PicRec
(MV)
.83 .60 M .70 .71 .47 L .50
PhnProc
(PC/LA)NonWrRep
PC,UM/MS
.83 .75 H .59 .90 .58 M .18
VerbAttn
(WM/AC)ObNmSq
(WM)NumRev
(WM)MemWrd
(MS)
.86 .65 H .76 .86 .61 M .36.89 .71 M .74 .82 .63 M .58
.15
.18
.50
.29 .26
.18 .30
.29Gq
.32 GrwCOGACH
OL
.62 .73 .63 .43 .48 .35 .29 .46 .33
.42 .42 .50 .32 .41 33 .39 .45 .41 .29 .27 .31
.31 .37 .42 .29 .30 .29
.51 .55 .48 .51 .55 .58 .34 .45 .34
.57 .56 .52 .47 .44 .40
.36 .46 .37 .25 .23 .27
.53 .50 .53 .34 .25 .41
.43 .35 .41 .44 .42 .38
.37 .37 .35 .33 .24 .25
.51 .42 47 .47 .42 .41
.53 .49 .55 .43 .38 .42 .29 .27 .27
#
#
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP)Dr. Kevin McGrew 3-28-14
The WJ IV Tests of Cognitive Ability & Beyond CHC Theory: Session Outline
1. Big picture overview: Conceptual, theoretical, organizational, and design principles behind the WJ IV COG
2. Show and tell: The new tests and the WJ IV COG clusters
3. “Dare to compare”--“regress for success:” Intracognitive variations and PSW Gf-Gc composite hybrid comparison procedures
4. Breaking Bad: The WJ IV COG/OL table of cognitive elements
5. “In god we trust…all others must show data:”—select COG tech. info.
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 1-18-15
Select WJ IV COG technical information
COG/OL Mdn.Clusters r r2General Intellectual Ability 0.76 0.58Brief Intellectual Ability 0.73 0.53Gf-Gc Composite 0.68 0.46
Comprehension-Knowledge (Gc) 0.58 0.34Comprehension-Knowledge-Ext (Gc3) 0.58 0.34Fluid Reasoning (Gf) 0.64 0.41Fluid Reasoning-Ext (Gf3) 0.59 0.35Short-Term Working Memory (Gwm) 0.53 0.28Short-Term Working Memory-Ext (Gwm3) 0.52 0.27Cognitive Processing Speed (Gs) 0.49 0.24Auditory Processing (Ga) 0.51 0.26Long-Term Retrieval (Glr) 0.43 0.18Visual Processing (Gv) 0.38 0.14Quantitative Reasoning (Gf-RQ) 0.59 0.35Auditory Memory Span (Gsm-MS) 0.47 0.22Number Facility (Gs-N) 0.62 0.38Perceptual Speed (Gs-P) 0.58 0.34Cognitive Efficiency (Gsm+Gs) 0.55 0.30Cognitive Efficiency-Ext (Gsm+Gs) 0.66 0.44
Oral Language 0.55 0.30Broad Oral Language 0.57 0.32Oral Expression 0.54 0.29Listening Comprehension 0.55 0.30Phonetic Coding (Ga-PC) 0.44 0.19Speed of Lexical Access (Glr-LA) 0.37 0.14Vocabulary (Gc-LD/VL) 0.60 0.36
WJ IV COG and OL cluster
correlations with WJ IV
ACH clusters: Correlations
across 15 ACH clusters (ages 6-90+)
Select validity evidence: Correlations of WJ IV GIA, Gf-Gc composite, and BIA clusters with
Wechsler FS and GAI IQ scores
General Intellectual Ability (GIA)
Brief Intellectual Ability
Gf-Gc composite
WISC-IV WAIS-IV
.86 .81
.83 .80
.83 .83
Correlations are from WJ IV and WISC-IV (n = 174) and WAIS-IV (n = 177) concurrent validity studies (McGrew, LaForte, & Schrank, 2014). Wechsler FS/GAI correlations are .95 (WISC-IV) and .94 (WAIS-IV) in these samples.
FS GAI FS GAI
.84 .78
.74 .68
.78 .76
© Institute for Applied Psychometrics; Kevin McGrew 07-31-14
Select validity evidence: Correlations of WJ IV BIA and Gf-Gc composite clusters with GIA
Brief Intellectual Ability (BIA)
Gf-Gc composite
General Intellectual Ability (GIA)
.93
.87
Average correlations calculated across norm sample ages 6 through 90+
WISC-IV WISC-IV WISC-IV WISC-IVVCI PRI WMI PSI
WJ IV Measures (Gc) (Gf/Gv) (Gwm) (Gs)
CHC Factor ClustersComprehension-Knowledge (Gc) 0.79Fluid Reasoning (Gf) 0.70Short-Term Working Memory (Gwm) 0.72Processing Speed (Gs) 0.55Auditory Processing (Ga)Long-Term Retrieval (Glr)Visual Processing (Gv) 0.55
Narrow Ability & Clinical ClustersQuantitative Reasoning (RQ) 0.65Auditory Memory Span (MS) 0.52Number Facility (N) 0.57Perceptual Speed (P) 0.56
Note: Bold font values represent correlations between best comparable CHC broad composites.Red bold font are interesting correlations given the Wechsler composites composition.WISC-IV/WAIS-IV PRI and WMI composites are not comparable--different mixtures of CHC abilities. (see next slide)
WJ IV COG /WISC-IV CHC composite select score correlations ( n = 174)
Block Design-Gv-VzPic Cocnepts – Gf-IMatrix Reasoning – Gf-I
Digit Span – Gwm-MS/MWLetter-Num Seq – Gwm-MW
WAIS-IV WAIS-IV WAIS-IV WAIS-IVVCI PRI WMI PSI
WJ IV Measures (Gc) (Gv/Gf) (Gwm/Gq) (Gs)
CHC Factor ClustersComprehension-Knowledge (Gc) 0.74Fluid Reasoning (Gf) 0.57Short-Term Working Memory (Gwm) 0.67Processing Speed (Gs) 0.44Auditory Processing (Ga)Long-Term Retrieval (Glr)Visual Processing (Gv) 0.57
Narrow Ability & Clinical ClustersQuantitative Reasoning (RQ) 0.54 0.53Auditory Memory Span (MS)Number Facility (N) 0.65 0.52Perceptual Speed (P) 0.61
Note: Bold font values represent correlations between best comparable CHC broad composites.Red bold font are interesting correlations given the Wechsler composites composition.WISC-IV/WAIS-IV PRI and WMI composites are not comparable--different mixtures of CHC abilities. Noted Wechsler correlations with tests classifications based on Flanagan et al., 2013.
WJ IV COG / WAIS-IV CHC composite select score correlations ( n = 177)
Block Design-Gv-VzVisual Puzzles – Gv-VzMatrix Reasoning – Gf-I
Digit Span – Gwm-MS/MWArithmetic – Gwm-WM/Gf-RQ (Gq?)
KABC-II KABC-II KABC-II KABC-II KABC-IIKnow./ Plan./ Sim./ Seq./ Lrng./
WJ IV Measures GcIndex
GfIndex
Gv Index
GsmIndex
GlrIndex
CHC Factor ClustersComprehension-Knowledge (Gc) 0.82Fluid Reasoning (Gf) 0.46Short-Term Working Memory (Gwm)
0.42
Processing Speed (Gs)Auditory Processing (Ga)Long-Term Retrieval (Glr) 0.64Visual Processing (Gv) 0.37
Note: Bold font values represent correlations between best comparable CHC broad composites.Low to moderate corresponding Gf, Gv and Gwm correlations most likely reflect narrow ability content differences in composites (classifications based on Reynolds et al., 2007 and Flanagan et al., 2013).
WJ IV COG / KABC-II composite select score correlations (n = 50)
Pattern Reasoning - Gf-I/Gv-Vz Story Completion – Gf-RG
Number Recall – Gsm-MSWord Recall – Gsm-MS/WM?
Rover – Gv-SSTriangles – Gv-Vz
SB-5 SB-5 SB-5 SB-5 SB-5Fluid Quant. Vis.-Spatial Working
Know. Reas. Reas. Proc. MemoryWJ IV Measures (Gc) (Gf) (Gf-RQ) (Gv) (Gwm)
CHC Factor ClustersComprehension-Knowledge (Gc) 0.68 0.75 0.72 0.72Fluid Reasoning (Gf) 0.67 0.56 0.66 0.66Short-Term Working Memory (Gwm) 0.62 0.69Cognitive Processing Speed (Gs)Auditory Processing (Ga) 0.68 0.73 0.72Long-Term Retrieval (Glr)Visual Processing (Gv) 0.40
Note: Bold font values represent correlations between best comparable CHC broad composites.Red bold font are interesting correlations given the SB-5 composites composition.The convergent/divergent validity of the SB-5 CHC composite scores has been seriously questioned (Canivez, 2008; DiStefano & Dombrowski, 2006; Keith & Reynolds, 2010) as well as very high composite score intercorrelations in the SB-5 technical manual (.65 to .75)
WJ IV COG / SB-5 CHC composite select score correlations (n = 50)
Dr. Kevin McGrew internet resources
(@iqmobile)