[Double click on image to enlarge]
Back in 1997, I, together with Dawn Flanagan, Tim Keith and Mike Vanderwood, published our first g+specific--->achievement article in School Psychology Review. I recently searched high and low for a pdf copy of this article via the usual library sources but came up blank. I finally scanned a copy into a pdf file. A copy of this article can be viewed by clicking here.
Included in that article was the figure to the right (double click to enlarge the figure). I've always liked this figure as it laid out the reasoning why the "just say no" (to intelligence test subtest analysis) research needed to be revisited in light of advances in: (a) theories of intelligence (CHC theory), (b) measurement of intelligence constructs (Gf-Gc or CHC-grounded batteries), and (c) statistical methodology (SEM vs multiple regression). The figure summarizes much of the introductory text in the 1997 article. Frankly, this publication is one of those for which I'm the most proud. Why?
First, the results demonstrated that some specific abilities are important in understanding reading and math achievement above and beyond the effect of g (general intelligence). IMHO this was a very important finding...and led us to argue for the "just say maybe" position (re: interpretation of strength and weakness profiles of cognitive tests---where the S/W measures where composites of at least 2 tests---cluster scores). Even Dr. Dan Reschly, someone typically associated with the anti-IQ movement in school psychology, in a response article in the same special SPR issue, stated (with regard to our 1997 article) :
Interestingly, although not dealing with reading and math achievement, a recent article in the prestigious journal Intelligence provided additional support for the g+specific "just say maybe" position. The CHC-organized article by Reeve (2004) demonstrated that specific cognitive abilities are indeed important (above and beyond the effect of g) in understanding and explaining the development of domain-specific knowldge (Gkn). The Reeve article provides an excellent review of the literature and, in many respects, reflects (and extends and augments) the arguments we made in our original 1997 article. I urge those interested in the g+specific abilities debate to carefully read Reeve's literature review...as well as his findings. The Reeve findings are important given the extremely large size of the sample (n = 300,000+ from the famous PROJECT TALENT project)
Finally, I would be remiss if proper credit was not given to the "grandmother" article that first stimulated our (McGrew et al., 1997) initial g+specific abilities project, and which also appeared to play a noticeable role in the Reeve (2004) study. Our original research was started after reading the following article:
Of course, if one does not believe in the construct of g (e.g., John Horn's adamant position), then narrow and broad CHC abilities are found to be even more important (as reflected in the non-g CHC organized multiple regression studies integrated in the above mentioned research synthesis). However, that is another post (or series of posts).
Back in 1997, I, together with Dawn Flanagan, Tim Keith and Mike Vanderwood, published our first g+specific--->achievement article in School Psychology Review. I recently searched high and low for a pdf copy of this article via the usual library sources but came up blank. I finally scanned a copy into a pdf file. A copy of this article can be viewed by clicking here.
Included in that article was the figure to the right (double click to enlarge the figure). I've always liked this figure as it laid out the reasoning why the "just say no" (to intelligence test subtest analysis) research needed to be revisited in light of advances in: (a) theories of intelligence (CHC theory), (b) measurement of intelligence constructs (Gf-Gc or CHC-grounded batteries), and (c) statistical methodology (SEM vs multiple regression). The figure summarizes much of the introductory text in the 1997 article. Frankly, this publication is one of those for which I'm the most proud. Why?
First, the results demonstrated that some specific abilities are important in understanding reading and math achievement above and beyond the effect of g (general intelligence). IMHO this was a very important finding...and led us to argue for the "just say maybe" position (re: interpretation of strength and weakness profiles of cognitive tests---where the S/W measures where composites of at least 2 tests---cluster scores). Even Dr. Dan Reschly, someone typically associated with the anti-IQ movement in school psychology, in a response article in the same special SPR issue, stated (with regard to our 1997 article) :
- “The arguments were fairly convincing regarding the need to reconsider the specific versus general abilities conclusions. Clearly, some specific abilities appear to have potential for improving individual diagnoses. " (Reschly, 1997, p.238).
Interestingly, although not dealing with reading and math achievement, a recent article in the prestigious journal Intelligence provided additional support for the g+specific "just say maybe" position. The CHC-organized article by Reeve (2004) demonstrated that specific cognitive abilities are indeed important (above and beyond the effect of g) in understanding and explaining the development of domain-specific knowldge (Gkn). The Reeve article provides an excellent review of the literature and, in many respects, reflects (and extends and augments) the arguments we made in our original 1997 article. I urge those interested in the g+specific abilities debate to carefully read Reeve's literature review...as well as his findings. The Reeve findings are important given the extremely large size of the sample (n = 300,000+ from the famous PROJECT TALENT project)
Finally, I would be remiss if proper credit was not given to the "grandmother" article that first stimulated our (McGrew et al., 1997) initial g+specific abilities project, and which also appeared to play a noticeable role in the Reeve (2004) study. Our original research was started after reading the following article:
- Gustafsson, J. -E., & Balke, G. (1993). General and specific abilities as predictors of school achievement. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 28, 407–434. (click here to view)
Of course, if one does not believe in the construct of g (e.g., John Horn's adamant position), then narrow and broad CHC abilities are found to be even more important (as reflected in the non-g CHC organized multiple regression studies integrated in the above mentioned research synthesis). However, that is another post (or series of posts).
