This current post is a continuation of a loosely connected set of recent posts I have made in an
attempt to better understand the human ability constructs of cognitive ability,
aptitude, and achievement abilities.
These efforts are part of a manuscript in development, which I will
announce when completed.
Today’s
post defines a cognitive-aptitude-trait
complex (CAATC). This material
should have been included in my prior Clarification
of Intellectual Ability Constructs post, but my thinking (based on
subsequent data analyses) had not yet crystallized. I would strongly urge readers to visit that
prior post before reading the current post.
Similarly, another prior post that defined and demonstrated how to
develop developmentally-sensitive
CHC-consistent scholastic aptitude clusters is must as a background
read. The concept of scholastic aptitude is integral to the
current post. Finally, if readers are
not familiar with the current pattern of strengths and weakness (POSW)
third-method SLD identification models should take a quick skim of Flanagan and Fiorrello
(2010). Since the following text is
in the formative stages, I have not included all the references. Where possible, I provide hyperlinks to some
references for those who may want to read these sources.
Beyond
CHC: Cognitive-Aptitude-Achievement
Trait Complexes (CAATC)
I believe that the various third method SLD methods would benefit from being framed in a
broader conceptual and theoretical framework.
Regardless of the SLD model name (e.g., concordance-discordance;
discrepancy/consistency; dual discrepancy/consistency), the models, at their
core, are all based on the notion of a specific pattern or configuration of abilities, aptitudes, and achievements
related to different types of SLD in different achievement domains (see
Flanagan & Fiorrello, 2010). The
visual-graphic representation of each model typically includes three shapes
(representing construct domains) and simple discrepancy comparisons between the
domains (typically designated by arrows).
Although clean and efficient for enhancing conceptual understanding,
such models tend to implicitly suggest a somewhat simplistic multiple domain discrepancy
score approach to defining SLD.
Furthermore, the rationales for these models reflect a parochial
foundation in contemporary federal SLD regulations, and contemporary research
from the fields of special education, school psychology/neuropsychology, and
psychometric factor-analysis intelligence research. Seminal and historical research from other
corners of psychology (e.g., individual differences, educational psychology),
that has focused on the development of theories and methods for measuring and
describing characteristic patterns or configurations of different human ability
traits, is largely ignored in this contemporary SLD model literature.
Richard Snow’s seminal study of aptitude complexes (which, at various times, he also referred to as
compounds and configurations) (Corno
et al., 2002; Snow, 1987) is the most prominent educational psychology
example. Building on Snow’s work, Ackerman’s
(1996) PPIK (intelligence-as-process, personality, interests,
intelligence-as-knowledge) model of intelligence has produced intriguing
research-based insights into trait complexes.
In an Annual Review of Psychology
article on individual differences in intelligence (Scientific and Social Significance of Assessing Individual Differences:“Sinking
Shafts at a Few Critical Points”), Lubinski (2000)
recognizes the similarity of the work of Snow and Ackerman (and others) via the
discussion of the constellations of
cross-domain attributes. Although these
programs of research have typically dealt with a broader array of human trait
domains (intelligence, achievement, motivation, personality, interests, etc.),
the focus on patterns or configurations across and within domains is similar to
the focus of contemporary SLD third method models.
I believe that research and conceptualization of the
third-method POSW SLD models would benefit from being viewed as a narrow subset
of a larger set of trait complexes. Contemporary SLD assessment research could
benefit from the conceptual and methodological progress demonstrated by
trait-complex organized research (e.g., see Ackerman, 1996, 2000; Ackerman,
Bowen, Beier & Kanfer, 2001; Ackerman, Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham,
2011).[1] For example, this historical research would
serve to remind contemporary assessment personal that aptitude-achievement
relations are not readily captured in simple linear relations (and figures) and
often requires interactions and the conceptualization of relations in
multidimensional hyperspace (see Snow, 1987).
To advance this suggestion, I suggest the various
third-method POSW SLD models be considered attempts to understand and measure cognitive-aptitude-achievement trait
complexes. Borrowing liberally from Ackerman
(Ackerman, 1997; Ackerman & Beier, 2005), who in turn drew on the seminal
work of Cronbach (1967) and Snow (1989), a trait
complex is defined in the most general sense as “sets of traits that
combine to affect some type of outcome…the sets of traits are sufficiently
interrelated to suggest exploration of mutually causal interdependencies” (Ackerman,
1997, p. 187). This definition is
consistent with the definition in the Shorter
English Dictionary (2002) which defines the noun complex as “1 A
complex whole; a group of related elements…2 Chemistry. A substance or species formed by the combination
of simpler ones” (p. 468; bold in original).
In the current context I define a cognitive-aptitude-achievement
trait complex (CAATC) as a
constellation or combination of related cognitive, aptitude, and achievement
traits that, when combined together in a functional fashion, facilitate or
impede the acquisition of academic learning.
In my next post in this
series I will present formative exploratory data analyses that I believes offers
hope for better measuring, describing, and explaining school learning—with
implications for revisions of current third method SLD identification models.
[1]
The use of this broader context also serves as a necessary reminder (and link
to research) that one of the primary goals of cognitive, aptitude, achievement
testing is the identification of aptitude-treatment-interactions (ATI’s) that
can inform instruction interventions (see Corno et al., 2002).
