https://www.mdpi.com/1396952:
The Transition to Noncommunicable Disease: How to Reduce Its Unsustainable Global Burden by Increasing Cognitive Access to Health Self-Management
Abstract: The global epidemic of noncommunicable diseases (NCDs), such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes, is creating unsustainable burdens on health systems worldwide. NCDs are treatable but not curable. They are less amenable to top-down prevention and control than are the infectious diseases now in retreat. NCDs are mostly preventable, but only individuals themselves have the power to prevent and manage the diseases to which the enticements of modernity and rising prosperity have made them so susceptible (e.g., tobacco, fat-salt-carbohydrate laden food products). Rates of nonadherence to healthcare regimens for controlling NCDs are high, despite the predictable long-term ravages of not self-managing an NCD effectively. I use international data on adult functional literacy to show why the cognitive demands of today’s NCD self-management (NCD-SM) regimens invite nonadherence, especially among individuals of below-average or declining cognitive capacity. I then describe ways to improve the cognitive accessibility of NCD-SM regimens, where required, so that more patients are better able and motivated to[...]
Sent from my iPhone
Intelligent Insights on Intelligence Theories and Tests
Friday, February 25, 2022
Tuesday, February 22, 2022
From MDPI: "How Intelligence Can Be a Solution to Consequential World Problems"
https://www.mdpi.com/si/69309
How Intelligence Can Be a Solution to Consequential World ProblemsDear Colleagues,
The idea of the proposed symposium is to ask major contributors to the field of intelligence to take one consequential real-world problem—a problem of their choice—and to write about how what we know about intelligence could help us to solve the problem. What is, has been, or could be the role of human intelligence in solving a consequential problem the world faces?
A large proportion of intelligence research is devoted to basic issues; for example, what is the psychometric structure of intelligence? What are the cognitive bases of intelligence? What are the brain-based correlates (or even causes) of intelligence? What does intelligence predict? What are the validity and reliability of a certain kind of intelligence test, compared with those of other such tests? What makes a particular theory valid?
Such research is needed, but there are also problems larger than those presented in intelligence tests, including problems of today. Some of those larger problems have also become world problems. Here is a sample of such problems, some of which are new, while other problems are not: the pandemic, polarization and immobilization in democratic systems, human-rights violations, unequal opportunities, social[...]
******************************************************
Kevin McGrew, PhD
Educational Psychologist
Director, Institute for Applied Psychometrics
IAP
www.themindhub.com
******************************************************
How Intelligence Can Be a Solution to Consequential World ProblemsDear Colleagues,
The idea of the proposed symposium is to ask major contributors to the field of intelligence to take one consequential real-world problem—a problem of their choice—and to write about how what we know about intelligence could help us to solve the problem. What is, has been, or could be the role of human intelligence in solving a consequential problem the world faces?
A large proportion of intelligence research is devoted to basic issues; for example, what is the psychometric structure of intelligence? What are the cognitive bases of intelligence? What are the brain-based correlates (or even causes) of intelligence? What does intelligence predict? What are the validity and reliability of a certain kind of intelligence test, compared with those of other such tests? What makes a particular theory valid?
Such research is needed, but there are also problems larger than those presented in intelligence tests, including problems of today. Some of those larger problems have also become world problems. Here is a sample of such problems, some of which are new, while other problems are not: the pandemic, polarization and immobilization in democratic systems, human-rights violations, unequal opportunities, social[...]
******************************************************
Kevin McGrew, PhD
Educational Psychologist
Director, Institute for Applied Psychometrics
IAP
www.themindhub.com
******************************************************
Sunday, February 13, 2022
A neurocognitive psychometrics account of individual differences in attentional control. - PsycNET
Yet another study supporting the prominent role of attentional control (AC) for higher level cognition.
A neurocognitive psychometrics account of individual differences in attentional control. - PsycNET
https://doi.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fxge0001184
A neurocognitive psychometrics account of individual differences in attentional control. - PsycNET
https://doi.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fxge0001184
******************************************
Kevin S. McGrew, PhD
Educational & School Psychologist
Director
Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP)
https://www.themindhub.com
******************************************
Kevin S. McGrew, PhD
Educational & School Psychologist
Director
Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP)
https://www.themindhub.com
******************************************
Saturday, February 12, 2022
The genetics of g and specific cognitive #CHC abilites. A must read. Includes a commentary rant directed at my fellow #schoolpsychologist #IQ test researchers
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.02.05.479237v1
The genetics of specific cognitive abilities
Francesca Procopio, Quan Zhou, Ziye Wang, Agnieska Gidziela,
View ORCID Profile
Kaili Rimfeld,
View ORCID Profile
Margherita Malanchini, Robert Plomin
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.02.05.479237
This article is a preprint and has not been certified by peer review [what does this mean?].
0000000
The genetics of specific cognitive abilities
Francesca Procopio, Quan Zhou, Ziye Wang, Agnieska Gidziela,
View ORCID Profile
Kaili Rimfeld,
View ORCID Profile
Margherita Malanchini, Robert Plomin
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.02.05.479237
This article is a preprint and has not been certified by peer review [what does this mean?].
0000000
Abstract
Most research on individual differences in performance on tests of cognitive ability focuses on general cognitive ability (g), the highest level in the three-level Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) hierarchical model of intelligence. About 50% of the variance of g is due to inherited DNA differences (heritability) which increases across development. Much less is known about the genetics of the middle level of the CHC model, which includes 16 broad factors such as fluid reasoning, processing speed, and quantitative knowledge. We provide a meta-analytic review of 863,041 monozygotic-dizygotic twin comparisons from 80 publications for these middle-level factors, which we refer to as specific cognitive abilities (SCA). Twin comparisons were available for 11 of the 16 CHC domains. The average heritability across all SCA is 55%, similar to the heritability of g. However, there is substantial differential heritability and the SCA do not show the dramatic developmental increase in heritability seen for g. We also investigated SCA independent of g (g-corrected SCA, which we refer to as SCA.g). A surprising finding is that SCA.g remain substantially heritable (53% on average), even though 25% of the variance of SCA that covaries with g has been removed. Our review frames expectations for genomic research that will use polygenic scores to predict SCA and SCA.g. Genome-wide association studies of SCA.g are needed to create polygenic scores that can predict SCA profiles of cognitive abilities and disabilities independent of g. These could be used to foster children's cognitive strengths and minimise their weaknesses.
Blog masters comment. Although there are constant critical battles re the relevance of intelligence testing and CHC theory in school psychology (my professional roots), many of the critics fail to recognize that intelligence theory and research is not owned by the small applied sandbox of school psychology. Mainstream psychological researchers (i.e., serious scholars of intelligence research, cognitive psychologists, neuropsychologists, genetic psychologists, etc.) are finding tremendous value in using the CHC taxonomy to organize research, meta-analysis, and commentaries. The use of the CHC taxonomy to organize research and literature reviews is one of the most important contributions of CHC theory. I have repeatedly articulated the importance of this contribution in many publications since 1997…the most recent being my chapter with Joel Schneider in Contemporary Intellectual Assessment (4th edition). I was pleased to see our contribution reflected in this current paper by the authors using one of our taxonomic organizations to ground their research. The image is below, which is from our prior 2012 chapter.
What I find interesting is that many CHC specific cognitive abilities demonstrated significant heritabilities after g-heritability variance is statistically removed, and, the specific cognitive abilities do NOT show the same developmental heritability trend as g. These findings, in part, are consistent with John Horn's long standing arguement that psychometric g is just a statistical abstraction and that differential developmental, heritability, neurocognitive, and outcome relations evidence provides strong support for the validity of the broad CHC factors…with Horn going as far as saying g does not really exist as a real brain or biological based mechanism. And, recent psychometric network-based theories (dynamic mutualism, wired intelligence, process overlap; brain network research) can account for the positive definite nature of correlation matrices (without involving a latent g variable), which, along with the failure to find a brain or biological based theoretical or psychological g despite over 100 years of research ("g is the Loch Ness Monster of Psychology", McGrew, 2021) suggests that psychometric g is just that…a statistical abstraction. The findings in this paper need to be "chewed on" by those SP IQ test structural researchers who seem to be "stuck on psychometric g"….I call them "g-centrists" (McGrew et al., 2022 manuscript in preparation).
Yes, my fellow SP's, our strong "staticism" dust-bowel empirical factor studies of IQ test batteries (often with the same blunt hammer every time…….bi-factor or EFA with SL orthogonalization; I was guilty of being similarly enamored with CFA as the ultimate "truth test" early in my career before I learned better, through my ongoing consultation and guidance by two important mentors—John Horn and especially Jack McArdle, who unfortunately passed away last week) are almost completely devoid of the integration of substantive mainstream research and theory. Much of our structural research may be statistically strong….but it is substantively very weak and nearly void of substantive research and theory. We are contributing to the theory crises in psychology (Fried, 2020), especially via the conflation of psychometric/statistical g with theoretical/psychological g. Intelligence and IQ tests are not the sole property of SP…research on CHC and other theories of intelligence, and providing valid psychometric measures of these constructs, is important for moving all of psychologies (and related fields) intelligence-related theoretical research forward. Thanks for letting me vent. Click on images to enlarge.
Some findings.
Most research on individual differences in performance on tests of cognitive ability focuses on general cognitive ability (g), the highest level in the three-level Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) hierarchical model of intelligence. About 50% of the variance of g is due to inherited DNA differences (heritability) which increases across development. Much less is known about the genetics of the middle level of the CHC model, which includes 16 broad factors such as fluid reasoning, processing speed, and quantitative knowledge. We provide a meta-analytic review of 863,041 monozygotic-dizygotic twin comparisons from 80 publications for these middle-level factors, which we refer to as specific cognitive abilities (SCA). Twin comparisons were available for 11 of the 16 CHC domains. The average heritability across all SCA is 55%, similar to the heritability of g. However, there is substantial differential heritability and the SCA do not show the dramatic developmental increase in heritability seen for g. We also investigated SCA independent of g (g-corrected SCA, which we refer to as SCA.g). A surprising finding is that SCA.g remain substantially heritable (53% on average), even though 25% of the variance of SCA that covaries with g has been removed. Our review frames expectations for genomic research that will use polygenic scores to predict SCA and SCA.g. Genome-wide association studies of SCA.g are needed to create polygenic scores that can predict SCA profiles of cognitive abilities and disabilities independent of g. These could be used to foster children's cognitive strengths and minimise their weaknesses.
Blog masters comment. Although there are constant critical battles re the relevance of intelligence testing and CHC theory in school psychology (my professional roots), many of the critics fail to recognize that intelligence theory and research is not owned by the small applied sandbox of school psychology. Mainstream psychological researchers (i.e., serious scholars of intelligence research, cognitive psychologists, neuropsychologists, genetic psychologists, etc.) are finding tremendous value in using the CHC taxonomy to organize research, meta-analysis, and commentaries. The use of the CHC taxonomy to organize research and literature reviews is one of the most important contributions of CHC theory. I have repeatedly articulated the importance of this contribution in many publications since 1997…the most recent being my chapter with Joel Schneider in Contemporary Intellectual Assessment (4th edition). I was pleased to see our contribution reflected in this current paper by the authors using one of our taxonomic organizations to ground their research. The image is below, which is from our prior 2012 chapter.
What I find interesting is that many CHC specific cognitive abilities demonstrated significant heritabilities after g-heritability variance is statistically removed, and, the specific cognitive abilities do NOT show the same developmental heritability trend as g. These findings, in part, are consistent with John Horn's long standing arguement that psychometric g is just a statistical abstraction and that differential developmental, heritability, neurocognitive, and outcome relations evidence provides strong support for the validity of the broad CHC factors…with Horn going as far as saying g does not really exist as a real brain or biological based mechanism. And, recent psychometric network-based theories (dynamic mutualism, wired intelligence, process overlap; brain network research) can account for the positive definite nature of correlation matrices (without involving a latent g variable), which, along with the failure to find a brain or biological based theoretical or psychological g despite over 100 years of research ("g is the Loch Ness Monster of Psychology", McGrew, 2021) suggests that psychometric g is just that…a statistical abstraction. The findings in this paper need to be "chewed on" by those SP IQ test structural researchers who seem to be "stuck on psychometric g"….I call them "g-centrists" (McGrew et al., 2022 manuscript in preparation).
Yes, my fellow SP's, our strong "staticism" dust-bowel empirical factor studies of IQ test batteries (often with the same blunt hammer every time…….bi-factor or EFA with SL orthogonalization; I was guilty of being similarly enamored with CFA as the ultimate "truth test" early in my career before I learned better, through my ongoing consultation and guidance by two important mentors—John Horn and especially Jack McArdle, who unfortunately passed away last week) are almost completely devoid of the integration of substantive mainstream research and theory. Much of our structural research may be statistically strong….but it is substantively very weak and nearly void of substantive research and theory. We are contributing to the theory crises in psychology (Fried, 2020), especially via the conflation of psychometric/statistical g with theoretical/psychological g. Intelligence and IQ tests are not the sole property of SP…research on CHC and other theories of intelligence, and providing valid psychometric measures of these constructs, is important for moving all of psychologies (and related fields) intelligence-related theoretical research forward. Thanks for letting me vent. Click on images to enlarge.
Some findings.
******************************************
Kevin S. McGrew, PhD
Educational & School Psychologist
Director
Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP)
https://www.themindhub.com
******************************************
Kevin S. McGrew, PhD
Educational & School Psychologist
Director
Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP)
https://www.themindhub.com
******************************************
Tuesday, February 08, 2022
A neurocognitive psychometrics account of individual differences in attentional control. - PsycNET
https://doi.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fxge0001184
Schubert, A.-L., Löffler, C., & Hagemann, D. (2022). A neurocognitive psychometrics account of individual differences in attentional control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001184
Attention control processes play an important role in many substantial psychological theories but are hard to reliably and validly measure on the subject-level. Therefore, associations between individual differences in attentional control and other variables are often inconsistent. Here we propose a novel neurocognitive psychometrics account of attentional control that integrates model parameters from the dual-stage two-phase model (Hübner et al., 2010), a mathematical model of selective attention, with neural correlates of conflict processing (i.e., latencies of the stimulus-locked lateralized readiness potential) in a multilayer structural equation model framework. We analyzed data from 150 participants who completed the Eriksen Flanker task while their EEG was recorded and used the neurocognitive psychometric approach to distinguish between two sequential stages of information-processing—target selection and response selection. Model parameters and neural correlates showed convergent validity and could be meaningfully related to each other. Together, these neurocognitive process parameters jointly explained 37 % of the variance in individual differences in higher-order cognitive abilities that were assessed with a battery of intelligence tests and working memory tasks. Individuals with greater cognitive abilities were not only better at focusing their attention on the target stimulus but also at subsequent response-selection. All in all, our results support the idea that individual differences in attentional control processes are related to individual differences in cognitive abilities. Moreover, they provide hope that the measurement crisis of individual differences in attentional control can be overcome by integrating measurement approaches from related disciplines such as mathematical psychology and cognitive neuroscience. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)
Schubert, A.-L., Löffler, C., & Hagemann, D. (2022). A neurocognitive psychometrics account of individual differences in attentional control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001184
Attention control processes play an important role in many substantial psychological theories but are hard to reliably and validly measure on the subject-level. Therefore, associations between individual differences in attentional control and other variables are often inconsistent. Here we propose a novel neurocognitive psychometrics account of attentional control that integrates model parameters from the dual-stage two-phase model (Hübner et al., 2010), a mathematical model of selective attention, with neural correlates of conflict processing (i.e., latencies of the stimulus-locked lateralized readiness potential) in a multilayer structural equation model framework. We analyzed data from 150 participants who completed the Eriksen Flanker task while their EEG was recorded and used the neurocognitive psychometric approach to distinguish between two sequential stages of information-processing—target selection and response selection. Model parameters and neural correlates showed convergent validity and could be meaningfully related to each other. Together, these neurocognitive process parameters jointly explained 37 % of the variance in individual differences in higher-order cognitive abilities that were assessed with a battery of intelligence tests and working memory tasks. Individuals with greater cognitive abilities were not only better at focusing their attention on the target stimulus but also at subsequent response-selection. All in all, our results support the idea that individual differences in attentional control processes are related to individual differences in cognitive abilities. Moreover, they provide hope that the measurement crisis of individual differences in attentional control can be overcome by integrating measurement approaches from related disciplines such as mathematical psychology and cognitive neuroscience. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)
******************************************
Kevin S. McGrew, PhD
Educational & School Psychologist
Director
Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP)
https://www.themindhub.com
******************************************
Kevin S. McGrew, PhD
Educational & School Psychologist
Director
Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP)
https://www.themindhub.com
******************************************
Thursday, February 03, 2022
Attention control and process overlap theory: Searching for cognitive processes underpinning the positive manifold - ScienceDirect
Attention control and process overlap theory: Searching for cognitive processes underpinning the positive manifold - ScienceDirect
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289622000101?via%3Dihub
Highlights
•
We discuss process overlap theory and the executive attention framework.
•
Both theories provide explanations for the positive manifold among ability tests.
•
Analyses revealed that attention control had the highest loading on the g-factor.
•
Attention control largely explained the positive correlations between abilities.
Abstract
Process overlap theory provides a contemporary explanation for the positive correlations observed among cognitive ability measures, a phenomenon which intelligence researchers refer to as the positive manifold. According to process overlap theory, cognitive tasks tap domain-general executive processes as well as domain-specific processes, and correlations between measures reflect the degree of overlap in the cognitive processes that are engaged when performing the tasks. In this article, we discuss points of agreement and disagreement between the executive attention framework and process overlap theory, with a focus on attention control: the domain-general ability to maintain focus on task-relevant information and disengage from irrelevant and no-longer relevant information. After describing the steps our lab has taken to improve the measurement of attention control, we review evidence suggesting that attention control can explain many of the positive correlations between broad cognitive abilities, such as fluid intelligence, working memory capacity, and sensory discrimination ability. Furthermore, when these latent variables are modeled under a higher-order g factor, attention control has the highest loading on g, indicating a strong relationship between attention control and domain-general cognitive ability. In closing, we reflect on the challenge of directly measuring cognitive processes and provide suggestions for future
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289622000101?via%3Dihub
Highlights
•
We discuss process overlap theory and the executive attention framework.
•
Both theories provide explanations for the positive manifold among ability tests.
•
Analyses revealed that attention control had the highest loading on the g-factor.
•
Attention control largely explained the positive correlations between abilities.
Abstract
Process overlap theory provides a contemporary explanation for the positive correlations observed among cognitive ability measures, a phenomenon which intelligence researchers refer to as the positive manifold. According to process overlap theory, cognitive tasks tap domain-general executive processes as well as domain-specific processes, and correlations between measures reflect the degree of overlap in the cognitive processes that are engaged when performing the tasks. In this article, we discuss points of agreement and disagreement between the executive attention framework and process overlap theory, with a focus on attention control: the domain-general ability to maintain focus on task-relevant information and disengage from irrelevant and no-longer relevant information. After describing the steps our lab has taken to improve the measurement of attention control, we review evidence suggesting that attention control can explain many of the positive correlations between broad cognitive abilities, such as fluid intelligence, working memory capacity, and sensory discrimination ability. Furthermore, when these latent variables are modeled under a higher-order g factor, attention control has the highest loading on g, indicating a strong relationship between attention control and domain-general cognitive ability. In closing, we reflect on the challenge of directly measuring cognitive processes and provide suggestions for future
******************************************
Kevin S. McGrew, PhD
Educational & School Psychologist
Director
Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP)
https://www.themindhub.com
******************************************
Kevin S. McGrew, PhD
Educational & School Psychologist
Director
Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP)
https://www.themindhub.com
******************************************
Sex differences in adolescents’ occupational aspirations: Variations across time and place
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0261438
We investigated sex differences in 473,260 adolescents' aspirations to work in things-oriented (e.g., mechanic), people-oriented (e.g., nurse), and STEM (e.g., mathematician) careers across 80 countries and economic regions using the 2018 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). We analyzed student career aspirations in combination with student achievement in mathematics, reading, and science, as well as parental occupations and family wealth. In each country and region, more boys than girls aspired to a things-oriented or STEM occupation and more girls than boys to a people-oriented occupation. These sex differences were larger in countries with a higher level of women's empowerment. We explain this counter-intuitive finding through the indirect effect of wealth. Women's empowerment is associated with relatively high levels of national wealth and this wealth allows more students to aspire to occupations they are intrinsically interested in. Implications for better understanding the sources of sex differences in career aspirations and associated policy are discussed.
We investigated sex differences in 473,260 adolescents' aspirations to work in things-oriented (e.g., mechanic), people-oriented (e.g., nurse), and STEM (e.g., mathematician) careers across 80 countries and economic regions using the 2018 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). We analyzed student career aspirations in combination with student achievement in mathematics, reading, and science, as well as parental occupations and family wealth. In each country and region, more boys than girls aspired to a things-oriented or STEM occupation and more girls than boys to a people-oriented occupation. These sex differences were larger in countries with a higher level of women's empowerment. We explain this counter-intuitive finding through the indirect effect of wealth. Women's empowerment is associated with relatively high levels of national wealth and this wealth allows more students to aspire to occupations they are intrinsically interested in. Implications for better understanding the sources of sex differences in career aspirations and associated policy are discussed.
******************************************
Kevin S. McGrew, PhD
Educational & School Psychologist
Director
Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP)
https://www.themindhub.com
******************************************
Kevin S. McGrew, PhD
Educational & School Psychologist
Director
Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP)
https://www.themindhub.com
******************************************
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)