Beyond IQ: Mining the “no-mans-land” between Intelligence and IQ: Journal of Intelligence special issue

I am pleased to see the Journal of Intelligence  addressing the integration of non-cognitive variables (personality; self-beliefs; motivational constructs; often called the “no-mans land” between intelligence and personality— I believe this catchy phrase was first used by Stankov) with intellectual constructs to better understanding human performance. I have had a long-standing interest in such comprehensive models as reflected by my articulation of the Model of Academic Competence and Motivation (MACM) and repeated posting of “beyond IQ” information at my blogs.

Joel Schneider and I briefly touched in this topic in our soon to be published CHC intelligence theory update chapter. Below is the select text and some awesome figures crafted by Joel.

Our simplified conceptual structure of knowledge abilities is presented in Figure 3.10. At the center of overlapping knowledge domains is general knowledge—knowledge and skills considered important for any member of the population to know (e.g., literacy, numeracy, self-care, budgeting, civics, etiquette, and much more). The bulk of each knowledge domain is the province of specialists, but some portion is considered important for all members of society to know. Drawing inspiration from F. L. Schmidt (2011, 2014), we posit that interests and experience drive acquisition of domain-specific knowledge.

In Schmidt's model, individual differences in general knowledge are driven largely by individual differences in fluid intelligence and general interest in learning, also known as typical intellectual engagement (Goff & Ackerman, 1992). In contrast, individual differences in domain-specific knowledge are more driven by domain-specific in-terests, and also by the “tilt” of one's specific abilities (Coyle, Purcell, Snyder, & Richmond, 2014; Pässler, Beinicke, & Hell, 2015). In Figure 3.11, we present a simplified hypothetical synthesis of several ability models in which abilities, interests, and personality traits predict general and specific knowledge (Ackerman, 1996a, 1996b, 2000; Ackerman, Bowen, Beier, & Kanfer, 2001; Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997; Ackerman & Rolfhus, 1999; Fry & Hale, 1996; Goff & Ackerman, 1992; Kail, 2007; Kane et al., 2004; Rolfhus & Ackerman, 1999; Schmidt, 2011, 2014; Schneider et al., 2016; Schneider & Newman, 2015; Woodcock, 1993; Ziegler, Danay, Heene, Asendorpf, & Bühner, 2012).

Click on images to enlarge.







- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Can emotional intelligence (Gei) be trained: A meta-analysis

Can emotional intelligence be trained? A meta-analysis

Please cite this article as: Mattingly, V., Human Resource Management Review (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2018.03.002

Victoria Mattingly, Kurt Kraiger

Keywords: Emotional intelligence, Training Meta-analysis

A B S T R A C T

Human resource practitioners place value on selecting and training a more emotionally in-telligent workforce. Despite this, research has yet to systematically investigate whether emo-tional intelligence can in fact be trained. This study addresses this question by conducting a meta-analysis to assess the effect of training on emotional intelligence, and whether effects are mod-erated by substantive and methodological moderators. We identified a total of 58 published and unpublished studies that included an emotional intelligence training program using either a pre-post or treatment-control design. We calculated Cohen's d to estimate the effect of formal training on emotional intelligence scores. The results showed a moderate positive effect for training, regardless of design. Effect sizes were larger for published studies than dissertations. Effect sizes were relatively robust over gender of participants, and type of EI measure (ability v. mix-edmodel). Further, our effect sizes are in line with other meta-analytic studies of competency-based training programs. Implications for practice and future research on EI training are discussed.

See prior Gei posts here and here.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

AJT CHC Intelligence Test launch in Jakarta - a measure of 9 broad CHC abilities

Yesterday’s AJT CHC cognitive test launch in Jakarta was a big success. I was taken aback by the special “event” flavor. Extremely professional. As I’ve stated before, the AJT is based on an Indonesia norm sample of 4,800 and will be one if the most comprehensive intelligence tests in the world (on par with the WJ IV COG). It measures 9 broad CHC domains (Gf, Gc, Gwm, Ga, Gv, Gs, Gl, Gr, and some of Gp-separate from cognitive). This has been the most personally rewarding and important project I have worked on in my 40+ years in psychology and education. It is bringing the core concept of individual differences to the education system of the fourth largest country in the world.

George and Laurel Tahija (see picture below), and their YDB foundation, are the visionaries behind this project and other projects focused on trying to help unique learners in their country. In my five years on this project I can say that I’ve never worked with so many nice people . It was a grand effort by many. I am very impressed how together we built such a comprehensive and technically sound battery of tests from scratch. I have developed a fondness for Indonesia and the people of this wonderful country. The genuine warmth and enthusiasm of the participants was personally moving.

For more information check out these two links (one; two)

Click images to enlarge.












Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

CHC intelligence theory update: Live chat (this Sunday evening) or later viewing on YouTube

I am looking forward to talking about the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) model of intelligence on the #psychedpodcast this sunday evening.

I will present material largely based on the forthcoming CHC chapter coauthored with Dr. Joel Schneider.  Tune it....it shall be fun. Or, watch the discussion later on YouTube, and eventually as an audio podcast on iTunes

BB (blatant brag): McGrew CHC 2009 article in Intelligence #1 (2008-2015) and top #10 all time

This was a pleasant surprise. I knew my 2009 Intelligence article was cited frequently but I never knew it was number one from 2008-2015 and it made the top 10 all time list for the journal Intelligence. I believe this is a reflection of the impact the CHC taxonomy has had. This should make my mom proud. Here is a link to the original article.

Bibliometric analysis across eight years 2008–2015 of Intelligence articles: An updating of Wicherts (2009). Article link.

Bryan J. Pesta

Abstract

I update and expand upon Wicherts' (2009) editorial in Intelligence. He reported citation counts of papers pub-lished in this journal from 1977 to 2007. All these papers are now at least a decade old, and many more new articles have been published since Wichert's analysis. An updated study is needed to help (1) quantify the journal's more recent impact on the scientific study of intelligence, and (2) alert researchers and educators to highly-cited articles; especially newer ones. Thus, I conducted a bibliometric analysis of all articles published here from 2008 to 2015. Data sources included both the Web of Science (WOS), and Google Scholar (GS). The eight-year set comprised 619 articles, published by 1897 authors. The average article had 17.0 (WOS), and 32.9 (GS) citations overall (2.75, and 5.33 citations per year, respectively). These metrics compare favorably with those from other psychology journals. In addition, a list of the most prolific authors is provided. Also reported is a list showing many articles in this set with counts greater than one hundred, and an updated top 25 list for the history of this journal.


“Also noteworthy is that nine of the articles in the old list (not shown here) dropped off the new list. Of their replacements, only three of the nine were published within the last decade: Deary, Strand, Smith, and Fernandes (2007); McGrew (2009), and Strenze (2007). The McGrew (2009) paper is again notable. It is the only article in my newer set (2008–2015) to make the all-time list. The paper ranks ninth on the all-time list with 281 citations, just eight years after being published.”


More recent Google Scholar citation info indicates that the article is still going strong from 2016-2017.

Click on images to enlarge.








- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

CFA of WISC-V: A five factor CHC battery

There are dueling factor study articles regarding the WISC-V in the research literature. Here is the take of Reynolds and Keith, who, IMHO, tend to do some of the best factor structure research in intelligence testing.

The five factors look like clear Gc, Gv, Gf, Gwm and Gs CHC factors.

Abstract

The purpose of this research was to test the consistency in measurement of Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Chil-dren-Fifth Edition (WISC-V; Wechsler, 2014) constructs across the 6 through 16 age span and to understand the constructs measured by the WISC-V. First-order, higher-order, and bifactor confirmatory factor models were used. Results were compared with two recent studies using higher-order and bifactor exploratory factor analysis (Canivez, Watkins, & Dombrowski, 2015; Dombrowski, Canivez, Watkins, & Beaujean, 2015) and two using con-firmatory factor analysis (Canivez, Watkins, & Dombrowski, 2016; Chen, Zhang, Raiford, Zhu, & Weiss, 2015). We found evidence of age-invariance for the constructs measured by the WISC-V. Further, both g and five distinct broad abilities (Verbal Comprehension, Visual Spatial Ability, Fluid Reasoning, Working Memory, and Processing Speed) were needed to explain the covariances among WISC-V subtests, although Fluid Reasoning was nearly equivalent to g. These findings were consistent whether a higher-order or a bifactor hierarchical model was used, but they were somewhat inconsistent with factor analyses from the prior studies. We found a correlation between Fluid Reasoning and Visual Spatial factors beyond a general factor (g) and that Arithmetic was primarily a direct indicator of g. Composite scores from the WISC-V correlated well with their corresponding underlying factors. For those concerned about the fewer numbers of subtests in the Full Scale IQ, the model implied relation between g and the FSIQ was very strong.

Click on images to enlarge.










- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Research Byte: The relations between CHC cognitive abilities and aspects of social support

Which aspects of social support are associated with which cognitive abilities for which people?

Article in The Journals of Gerontology Series B Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences · January 2016 with 12 Reads

Impact Factor: 3.21 · DOI: 10.1093/geronb/gbv119

Abstract

Objectives.
To assess the relations between 11 aspects of social support and five cognitive abilities (vocabulary, reasoning, spatial visualization, memory, and speed of processing) and to determine whether these relations between social support and cognition are moderated by age or sex.

Method.
A sample of 2,613 individuals between the ages of 18 and 99 years completed a battery of cognitive tests and a questionnaire assessing aspects of social support. A measure of general intelligence was computed using principal components analysis. Multiple regressions were used to evaluate whether each aspect of support and/or its interactions with age or sex predicted each cognitive ability and g.

Results.
Several aspects of social support were significantly related to all five cognitive abilities and to g. When g was included as a predictor, there were few relations with specific cognitive abilities. Age and sex did not moderate any of the relations.

Discussion.
These results suggest that contact with family and friends, emotional and informational support, anticipated support, and negative interactions are related to cognition, whereas satisfaction with and tangible support were not. In addition, these aspects of support were primarily related to g, with the exception of family contact. Social support– cognition relations are comparable across the life span and the sexes.

The Richard Woodcock Institute for Advancement of Cognitive Assessment: Oct, 25, 2014

The 2nd Richard Woodcock Institute for Advancement of Cognitive Assessment is now scheduled and enrollment is open. Registration and additional information can be found at the WMF web page.




- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

More on Greenspan's model of personal competence: Relationship between IQ and social, practical, and conceptual abilities

I am pleased to see that, after a relatively long draught in published research, someone is again investigating the relations between general intelligence, and the primary domains of adaptive behavior, in models (that when examined closely) that are investigating aspects of Greenspan's' model of personal competence. The title, abstract, and key figure from this new research follow. The article can be read here. Kudos to these researchers

Click on images to enlarge





My primary criticism of this study is that it completely ignores the primary foundation research in this area that occurred between 1990 and 2000, some of which are the primary research studies cited in the AAIDD manuals to support the domains of practical, conceptual and social competence (Greenspan's model). I have provided a list of that research, and results from the most prominent article from that group of researchers, below.












Yes, my name is all over these MIA studies (in the current featured article) so some could see my comments as academic sour grapes for being overlooked. But I see their omission as a lack of scholarly rigor by the researchers and the journal who published the current article. All of the MIA studies can be found at the MindHub--scroll down until you see the list of studies shown above. Then click away and download and read. It would have been nice if the new study results would have been integrated with the extant personal competence research literature.

In the final analysis I am pleased that someone is conducting much needed research on these constructs given the pivotal role they play in the definition and assessment of MR/ID.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

The new WJ IV: Introductory webinar and author video interviews

The publisher of the new WJ IV Battery just posted an on-line video of Dr. Fred Schrank's WJ IV introduction and overview webinar and brief video interviews of the three WJ IV authors. They can be found here.

[Conflict of interest disclosure: I am one of the coauthors of the WJ IV].

I am much younger looking than my video interview suggests :)






- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

The CHC Taxonomy of Human Cognitive Abilities Codebooks---two slide shows

The latest and greatest copies of the CHC theory of cognitive abilities definition codebooks are now available at ICDP's sister blog, IQ's Corner.

Emotional Intelligence (EI) a new broad CHC ability?

Very interesting study suggesting that Ge (broad emotional intelligence) should be considered as a new entry into the CHC taxonomy of intelligence. I love the "big picture" model figure.....of course, it is an adaption of my 2009 model in the journal Intelligence.

 

Posted with Blogsy

CHC model of intelligence is mainstream--Woodcock (1990) and McGrew (2009) both #1

I was searching through some journals tonight and discovered that Dr. Richard Woodock's seminal 1990 article, "Theoretical foundations of the WJ-R measures of cognitive ability", is the #1 cited article in the Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment (see image below...click to enlarge)

This article is not just about the WJ-R. The article used the then Gf-Gc based WJ-R special study data files to conduct a series of joint CFA with all the major intelligence tests. The most important insight was a mapping of all major IQ tests as per the major broad abilities of what is now call the CHC model of intelligence. It gave birth to the concept of CHC cross-battery assessment. It was a major influential tipping point article in the evolution of the CHC model; primarily by bridging theory and assessment practice. I have written about this important seminal Woodcock paper in McGrew (2005) and Schneider and McGrew (2012). This is also relfected in the CHC Timeline project, a portion which is presented below (click image to enlarge)

Couple this with the fact that my invited editorial on CHC theory, in the journal Intelligence, is the #1 cited article since 2009 in that journal, and it is my conclusion that CHC theory is now part of mainstream psychology and theories of intelligence.

The tipping point has passed...the CHC taxonomy is now mainstream. Further evidence is the revision or development and analysis of most all intelligence theories as per CHC theory (see the stellar research of Keith and Reynolds and others...here...and here.

Posted with Blogsy

McGrew (2009) CHC article in "Intelligence" most cited article in journal since 2009

This is a shameless plug. An invited editorial I published in the journal Intelligence is now the number one cited article, since 2009. I believe this is a solid indicator that the CHC model of intelligence is now the most prominent psychometric model of intelligence and is in the mainstream of intelligence research. My mom and dad should be proud. Click here to review or download.

Click on image to enlarge

 

 

Posted with Blogsy

Dissertation Dish: Cognitive efficiency (Gsm+Gs) trait stability across time: Scores can and will change

Click on images to enlarge

 

Posted with Blogsy

Psychometric taxonomic models of intelligence: A visual tour from g to CHC

Click on images to enlarge:

 

Posted with Blogsy