New directions in neuropsychological assessment: Augmenting neuropsychological assessment with CHC cognitive measures

New directions in neuropsychological assessment: Augmenting neuropsychological

assessment with CHC cognitive measures

Kevin S. McGrew, PhD

Woodcock-Muñoz Foundation

16th Annual APS College of Clinical Neuropsychologists Conference

From East to West: New directions in Neuropsychology

30 September - 2 October 2010

Notre Dame University, Fremantle, Western Australia

Stay informed

Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory of cognitive ability is the consensus taxonomy of cognitive abilities – Brief

Neuropsychological vs psychometric approaches –conceptual model differences

Mapping CHC model to neuropsychological models

CHC analysis of neuropsychological measures – illustrative examples

Overview of today’s presentation

“In an ever-changing

world, psychological

testing remains the

flagship of applied

psychology”

Embretson, S. E. (1996). The new rules of measurement.

Psychological Assessment, 8 (4), 341-349.

Three things (or major steps) completed

that have resulted in the intelligence

model(s) to be presented today

Things 1 and 2:

Will be covered quickly to provide context and

background for primary content of today – Thing 3

These “things” will be covered in more detail in my Saturday keynote presentation






The CHC Timeline Project (and detailed information re: CHC

theory/model) can be found at IQ’s Corner blog

www.iqscorner.com

The Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory of cognitive

abilities is the contemporary consensus

psychometric model of the structure of human

intelligence

PMA1

T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9T1 T12T10 T11

PMA2 PMA3 PMA4 …etc

…etc

G1 G2 G3 …etc

T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9T1 T12T10 T11

g

(1a) Spearman’s general Factor model

PMA1

T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9T1 T12T10 T11


…etc

(1b) Thurston’s Multiple Factor (Primary Mental Abilities) Model

PMA1

T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9T1 T12T10 T11

…etc

…etc

…etc

PMA2 PMA3 PMA4

G2G1

g

Arrows from g to each test

(rectangle) have been

omitted for readability

Stratum I

Stratum II

Stratum III

(1d) Carroll’s Schmid-Leiman Hierarchical Three-Stratum Model(1c) Cattell-Horn Gf-Gc Hierarchical Model

PMA1

T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9T1 T12T10 T11


…etc

G1 G2 G3

…etc

g ?

(1e) Consensus Cattell-Horn-Carroll Hierarchical Three-Stratum Model

Figure 1: Major stages in the evolution of psychometric theories from Spearman’s g to Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory

Note: Circles represent

latent factors. Squares

represent manifest

measures (tests; T1..).

Single-headed path

arrows designate factor

loadings. Double

headed arrows designate

latent factor correlations

Stratum I

Stratum II

Stratum III

CHC theory has entered the mainstream neuropsychological assessment literature

CHC theory has entered the mainstream neuropsychological assessment literature

A landmark event in understanding the

structure of human cognitive abilities - 1993

THE SCOPE OF CARROLL’S

FACTOR ANALYTIC REVIEW

• Reviewed factor analytic research of the past

50-60 years

• Includes nearly all of the more important and

classic factor analytic investigations

• Started with 1,500 references

• Final pool of 461 data sets that meet specific

criteria

• Reanalyzed all or nearly all of the data sets

• Used exploratory methods in order to “let the

data speak for themselves”

Richard Snow (1993):“John Carroll has done a magnificent thing. He has reviewed and reanalyzed the world’s literature on individual differences in cognitive abilities…no one else could have done it… it defines the taxonomy of cognitive differential psychology for many years to come.”

Burns (1994):Carroll’s book “is simply the finest work of research and scholarship I have read and is destined to be the classic study and reference work on human abilities for decades to come” (p. 35).

John Horn (1998):A “tour de force summary and integration” that is the “definitive foundation for current theory” (p. 58). Horn compared Carroll’s summary to “Mendelyev’s first presentation of a periodic table of elements in chemistry” (p. 58).

Arthur Jensen (2004):“…on my first reading this tome, in 1993, I was reminded of the conductor Hans von Bülow’s exclamation on first reading the full orchestral score of Wagner’s Die Meistersinger, ‘‘It’s impossible, but there it is!’’

“Carroll’s magnum opus thus distills and synthesizes the results of a century of factor analyses of mental tests. It is virtually the grand finale of the era of psychometric description and taxonomy of human cognitive abilities. It is unlikely that his monumental feat will ever be attempted again by anyone, or that it could be much improved on. It will long be the key reference point and a solid foundation for the explanatory era of differential psychology that we now see burgeoning in genetics and the brain sciences” (p. 5).

The verdict is unanimous re: the importance of Carroll’s (1993) work

...most disciplines have a common set of terms and

definitions (i.e., a standard nomenclature) that facilitates

communication among professionals and guards against

misinterpretations. In chemistry, this standard nomenclature

is reflected in the „Table of Periodic Elements‟. Carroll

(1993a) has provided an analogous table for intelligence…..

(Flanagan & McGrew, 1998)

Because the Carroll model is largely consistent with the model originally proposed by Cattell (1971), McGrew (2009) has proposed an integration of the two models which he calls the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (C-H-C) Integration

model….Because of the inclusiveness of this model, it is becoming the standard typology for human ability. It is certainly the culmination of

exploratory factor analysis.

The Science of Intelligence (Doug Detterman, 2010; book manuscript in preparation)

PMA1

T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9T1 T12T10 T11


…etc

G1 G2 G3

…etc

g ?


CHC as the consensus psychometric model of

intelligence

“The Cattell–Horn–Carroll (CHC) theory of cognitive abilities is the best validated model of human

cognitive abilities”

[Ackerman, P. L. & Lohman D. F. (2006). Individual differences in cognitive functions. In P. A. Alexander, P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational

psychology, 2nd edition (pp. 139-161). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.]

PMA1

T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9T1 T12T10 T11


…etc

G1 G2 G3

…etc

g ?



intelligence

A significant number of Australian intelligence scholars have framed (and/or continue to frame) their research as per the extended Gf-Gc (aka. CHC) model of intelligence. Many have made foundational contributions to building

the model.

N. R. BurnsT. Nettlebeck

L. StankovR. RobertsS. Bowden

PMA1

T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9T1 T12T10 T11


…etc

G1 G2 G3

…etc

g ?



intelligence

Importance Of Classification Taxonomies In All Sciences

Classification is arguably one of the most central and generic of all our conceptual exercises…without

classification, there could be no advanced conceptualization, reasoning, language, data analysis, or

for that matter, social science research (K.D. Bailey, 1994).

A specialized science of classification of empirical entities known as taxonomy (Bailey, 1994; Prentky, 1994)

is ubiquitous in all fields of study because it guides our search for information or truth.

(T# = designates different test measures)(PMA# = different “primary mental ability”)

PMA1

T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9T1 T12T10 T11

…etc

…etc

…etc

PMA2 PMA3 PMA4

G2G1

g

Arrows from g to each test(rectangle) have been omitted for readability

Stratum I

Stratum II

Stratum III

Carroll’s Schmid-Leiman Hierarchical Three-Stratum Model

CARROLL’S (1993) THREE-STRATUM

THEORY OF COGNITIVE ABILITIESgGeneral

Intelligence

Fluid

IntelligenceCrystallized

Intelligence

General

Memory &

Learning

Broad

Visual

Perception

Broad

Auditory

Perception

Broad

Retrieval

Ability

Broad

Cognitive

Speediness

Processing

Speed (RT

Decision

Speed)

Ge

ne

ral

(Str

atu

m III

)B

roa

d

(Str

atu

m II)

Na

rro

w

(Str

atu

m I)

69 narrow abilities found in data sets analyzed by Carroll

Gf Gc Gy Gv Gu Gr Gs Gt

-Cognitive abilities vary by degree of generality or breadth

(three strata – general, broad, narrow)

- General intelligence or g exists, and different cognitive

abilities are more related (correlated) with g than others

Gf

Broad

g General

RG

IRQ

RE

RPNarrow

CHC theory classifies abilities according to three levels or strata

RG = Gen Sequential (deductive)

Reasoning

I = Induction

RQ = Quantitative Reasoning

RP = Piagetian Reasoning

RE = Speed of Reasoning

Table of CHC broad and narrow

abilities and their definitions can be

found at www.IAPsych.com

Gf Gq Gsm Gv Ga Gs CDS GrwGc Glr

Flu

id

Inte

llige

nce

Cry

stal

lized

In

telli

gen

ce

Qu

anti

tati

veK

no

wle

dge

Sho

rt-T

erm

Mem

ory

Vis

ual

P

roce

ssin

g

Au

dit

ory

Pro

cess

ing

Lon

g-Te

rmR

etri

eval

Pro

cess

ing

Spee

d

Co

rrec

tD

ecis

ion

Sp

eed

Rea

din

g/W

riti

ng

Ca

ttel

l-H

orn

Carroll and Cattell-Horn Model Comparison

Flu

id

Inte

llige

nce

Cry

stal

lize

d

Inte

llige

nce

Ge

n. M

em

ory

& L

ear

nin

g

Bro

ad V

isu

alP

erc

ep

tio

n

Bro

ad A

ud

ito

ryP

erce

pti

on

Bro

ad R

etri

eval

Ab

ility

Bro

ad C

ogn

itiv

eSp

eed

ine

ss

Dec

/Rea

ctio

nTi

me

/Sp

eed

g

Ca

rro

ll

Gf Gy Gv Gs GtGc GrGu

Contemporary psychometric research has converged on the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory of cognitive abilities as the

consensus working taxonomy of human intelligence

McGrew, K. (2009). Editorial: CHC theory and the human cognitive abilities project: Standing on the shoulders of the giants of psychometric intelligence research, Intelligence, 37, 1-10.

WJ-R (1989) and WJ III (2001) – 7- 9 broad Gf-Gc abilities measured

SB5 (2003) CHC-based revision includes composite scores for 5 broad abilities (Gf, Gc, Gq, Gsm, Gv), via verbal and nonverbal tests.

Kaufman & Kaufman (2004) revise the KABC-II with a dual theoretical model (Luria-Das and CHC) blueprint, but with the CHC model recommended as the primary organizational structure to use.

Elliott (2007) revises the Differential Abilities Scales--II (DAS-II) with a heavy CHC influence.

WISC-IV (2003) and WAIS-IV (2008), although not explicitly based on CHC theory, were implicitly influenced by CHC theory.

CHC theory “has formed the foundationfor most contemporary IQ tests”

(Kaufman, 2009, p. 91)

Table of broad and narrow CHC abilities and definitions is included in yourhandout packet

Also available at: www.iapsych.com/aus1b.pdf

g

Gq KM A3

Gc LD K0 VL LS K1 K2 LA A5 CM OP MY KL

Grw RC SG V RD CZ RS WA EU

Ga PC US UR U3 UM UK UL U1/9 U8 U6 U5 UA/T/U UP

I RG RP RE

Gv Vz SR MV CS SS CF PI LE IL PN IM

Glr M6 MA L0 MM FE FI FF FX FO SP OP FW NA

Gsm MS MW

GsR9 N P

GtR1 R2 R4 R7

McGrew Table of CHC Gf-Gc Cognitive Elements

(© Kevin McGrew 3-25-99; 9-13-10 Rev.)

Cogn

itiv

e O

per

ati

on

sA

cqu

ired

Kn

ow

led

ge

Cogn

itiv

e E

ffic

ien

cy

FA

Gf RQ

Gkn ? ? ? ?

Gh KS ? ? ?

Gk TS ? ? ?

Go OM OS ? ?

Gp P1 P2 P3 P4 P6 P7 P8 A1 A4

Gps R3 WS PT MT

EF/AC ? ? ? ?

Oth

er/n

ew





??? Metrics…skeptics….scales and tales• (aka., voodoo psychometrics)


Thing 3 – attempt to integrate Thing 1 and

Thing 2 with neuropsychological

assessment models

“It is notable that there is a gap between

neuropsychological measures and evolving

conceptualizations of intelligence. That is, for

as seemingly related as the instruments and

concepts are, they have strikingly different

historical backgrounds.”

(Hoelzle, 2008)

Psychometric vs. neuropsychological

conception/model assessment gap

• NP measures traditionally selected on ability to differentiate between neurological and normal conditions---psychometric

frameworks derived with factor analytic techniques to synthesize theories that were similarly derived

• Singular concept of intelligence (g) has had minimal clinical utility in neuropsychological assessment

Psychometric vs. neuropsychological assessment gap:

Select reasons why (Hoelzle, 2008)

• NP assessment has been traditionally non-theoretical---popular models of

intelligence and cognitive abilities have been derived via statistical procedures

Vertical factor analysis (trait) model

Gf Gc Glr G..GsmGv etcAttn

Psychometric approaches have had primary (but not sole) focus/goal on internal/structural validity within each construct

domain --- Vertical models

Horizontal multiple regression (aptitude/functional/pragmatic) model

Gf Gc Glr G..GsmGv etcAttn

Criterion DVs

TBI ?

Brain Area/function

Neuropsychological approaches have had primary (but not sole) focus/goal on external/predictive (Dx) validity –

Horizontal models

Result has been many NP measures are mixture measures of multiple CHC domain abilities (which abilities and in

what amount [weighting] best predict criterion variables?)





??? Metrics…skeptics….scales and tales• (aka., voodoo psychometrics)


"If one writes a book on neuropsychological assessment, thou

shall not write a book that is less than 3 inches thick or less than 3

lbs in weight“ (McGrew, August 13, 2010)

The First Commandment of Neuropsychological Assessment

Arm-chair factor analysis of select

neuropsychological assessment model

domains

• Strauss et al. (2006)

• Lezak et al. (2004)

• Rabin et al. (2005)

• Shaghnessy & O‟Connor (2009)

• Miller (2010)

• Flanagan et al. (2010)

Lets look at the

pieces one by one –

blow them up

Strauss et al.

(2006)

Lezak et al.

(2004)

Rabin et al.

(2005)

Shaughnessy

& O'Connor

(2009)

Miller

(2010)

Flanagan

et al. (2010)

Gen int./

cognition

(CHC model)

Concept formation

&

reasoning

(verbal; visual;

arith. reas.)

Intelligence Intellectual Gen intelligence

(CHC model)

Gen intelligence

(CHC model)

Language

Verbal functions/

Language Language Language Language Language

Achievement Math proced. (CF

& reason)

(Calculations)

Verbal functions

(Verbal

Acd. Skills)

Achievement Language

(Rdg & Wrtg)

Academic

achievement

Memory &

Learning

(ach domains)

Arm-chair factor analysis of neuropsych. assessment domains [and CHC construct mapping] (K. McGrew; 8-18-10) [I of 3]

gGf

Gc

GrwGq

Strauss et al.

(2006)

Lezak et al.

(2004)

Rabin et al.

(2005)

Shaughnessy

& O'Connor (2009)

Miller

(2010)

Flanagan

et al. (2010)

Visual-spatial Perception

(Visual)

Construction

Visual spatial

skills

Construction

Visuoperceptual/

Visuospatial/

Visuoconstruction

Visual-spatial Visual-spatial

Perception

(Auditory)

Auditory

Perception

Language

(analysis of

sounds)

Language

(phonological

processing)

Auditory-

Verbal

Memory Memory Verbal Memory

Nonverbal

Memory

Memory Memory &

learning

Memory &

learning

Gv

GsmGlr

Ga


Strauss et al.

(2006)

Lezak et al.

(2004)

Rabin et al.

(2005)

Shaughnessy

& O'Connor (2009)

Miller

(2010)

Flanagan

et al. (2010)

Speed &

efficiency *

Speed &

efficiency

Attention

Executive

functions

Orientation &

attention

Executive

functions

& motor perf.

Attention

Executive

functions

Attention

Frontal executive

functions

Attentional

Executive

functions

Attention

Executive

Somatosensory/

olfactory; body

orientation

Motor function

Perception

(tactile;

olfaction)

Exec func

(motor perf.)

Tactile

Perception

Motor Skills

Sensory & motor Sensorimotor Sensory-

motor

GsGsm

GpGpsGoGhGk

AC??







CHC analysis of select commonly used

neuropsychological tests and test batteries

This is preliminary “work in progress”

I am NOT a neuropsychologist – looking for feedback and

expertise to refine

Goal is to demonstrate/model a “mode of thinking &

process” for NP‟s to apply CHC theory to their

assessments

• Time constraints makes it impossible to cover all the major

NP tests and batteries commonly used.

What does the WAIS-IV measure? CHC analysis and beyond

Kevin S. McGrew, PhD.

Educational & School Psychologist

DirectorInstitute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP)

WAIS-IV Tests Gc Gs Gv+Gf Gsm Gc Gs Gv+Gf Gsm

Vocabulary 0.89 0.87

Comprehension 0.83 0.83

Similarities 0.82 0.85

Information 0.79 0.82

Symbol Search 0.79 0.78

Coding 0.79 0.89

Visual Puzzles 0.78 0.68

Block Design 0.79 0.75

Figure Weights 0.43 0.37

Digit Span 0.73 0.83

Letter-Number Sequencing 0.69

Arithmetic 0.08 0.75 0.33 0.48

Matrix Reasoning 0.72 0.75

Cancellation 0.56

Picture Completion 0.61 0.67

Note: CHC factor labels in above table are Kevin McGrew'sCHC interpretation of the factors. In the WAIS-IV TM (Wechsler, 2008) the factors were labeled VerbalComprehension---Gc above; Processing Speed--Gs above; Perceptual Reasoning--Gv+Gfabove; Working Memory--Gsm above

Figure Weights, Letter-Number Sequencing and Cancellation not normed for 70-90 year olds

WAIS-IV TM CFA final model summaries (p. 72-73)

(16-69 yrs of age) (70-90 yrs of age)

Expert consensus broad WAIS-IV subtest

Comparison of Benson, Hulac & Kranzler (in press) and Keith classifications by Flanagan et al. cross-battery

(pers. communication, 10-30-09) CFA of WAIS-IV research group (Flanagan, pers.

communication, 11-2-09)

WAIS-IV Tests Gc Gs Gv Gf Gsm Gc Gs Gv Gf Gsm Gq

Vocabulary X X

Comprehension X X

Similarities X x x

Information X X

Symbol Search X X

Coding X X

Visual Puzzles X X

Block Design X X

Figure Weights X X

Digit Span X X

Letter-Number Sequencing X X

Arithmetic x X x x x

Matrix Reasoning X X

Cancellation X X

Picture Completion X x x

Note. Large bold X indicate salient loadings on CHC factors and agreement in

results between research groups. Keith only analyzed the single grand

correlation matrix in Table 5.1 of WAIS-IV TM

Note. Large X designates single CHC factor

broad classifications. Small x designates cross

CHC factor classifications

Only major difference was secondary Gc loading (small regular font x) by

Benson et al. (in press).

Kevin McGrew completed exploratory analysis of the single grand WAIS-IV subtest correlation matrix reported in Table 5.1 in WAIS-IV TM. Analyses included:

• EFA – Exploratory factor analysis (iterated common-factor model with oblique rotation)

• MDS – Multidimensional scaling analysis (Guttman Radex model)

• CA – Cluster analysis

(the results of these analyses follow on next series of slides)

WAIS-IV Subtests Gc Gs Gv+Gf Gsm Gc Gs Gv+Gf Gsm ?

Vocabulary (VC) 0.91 0.91

Comprehension (CO) 0.80 0.81

Similarities (SI) 0.76 0.80

Information (IN) 0.75 0.74

Symbol Search (SS) 0.85 0.84

Coding (CD) 0.71 0.80

Visual Puzzles (VP) 0.85 0.83

Block Design (BD) 0.73 0.70

Figure Weights (FW) 0.53 0.65

Digit Span (DS) 0.87 0.88

Letter-Number Sequencing (LN) 0.75 0.77

Arithmetic (AR) 0.25 0.43 0.30 0.33

Matrix Reasoning (MR) 0.42 0.48

Cancellation (CA) 0.36 0.45

Picture Completion (PCm) 0.38 0.30 0.28

-Factor loadings < .30 omitted for readability. Loadings in italics are loadings > .24 and < .30

-Shading reflects subtests with salient dual factor loadings

-Subtest abbreviations from Table 5.1 in WAIS-IV technical manual

-CHC factor interpretations by Kevin McGrew

Summary of exploratory factor analysis (iterative principal-axes common factoring with oblique rotation) of WAIS-IV subtest

intercorrelation matrix across all ages in norm sample (Table 5.1 WAIS-IV technical manual, p. 62) – analysis by Kevin McGrew

4-factor solution 5-factor solution

-3 -1 1 3

Dimension-1

-3

-1

1

3

Dim

ensi

on

-2

CA SS

CD

PCM

BD

DS

VP

COVC

SI

FW

AR

LN

MRIN

Visual-spatial processing (Gv)

Processing speed (Gs)

Verbal know & comp (Gc)

Short-term memory /working memory (Gsm)

MDS (Guttman Radex model) of WAIS-IV subtest intercorrelations

Fluid reasoning

(Gf)

WAIS-IV test Cluster Tree (Wards method) of WAIS-IV subtest intercorrelations

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5Distances

BD

SI

DS

MR

VC

AR

SS

VP

IN

CD

LN

FW

CO

CA

PCM

Verbal know & comp (Gc)

Short-term & working memory (Gsm)

Fluid Reasoning (Gf)

Visual-Spatial Proc.(Gv)

Processing Speed (Gs)(rate cognitive abilities)

Level (unspeeded) cognitive abilities

General Intelligence (g) as per WAIS-IV?

So…….what does the WAIS-IV measure?Conclusion and discussion

K. McGrew’s WAIS-IV Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) summary conclusion(Kevin McGrew 11-4-09; 9-14-10 Rev)

Arithmetic (K0)

Arithmetic (MS/MW)

Arithmetic (A3)

Arithmetic (RQ)

GfGq Gc GsmGa GvGlr Gs

g

Visual Puzzles (SR/Vz)

Block Design (SR/Vz)

Pic. Completion (CF)

Symbol Search (P/R9)

Coding (R9)Cancellation (P,R9)

Vocabulary (VL)Comprehension

(LD/K0)Similarities (LD/VL)

Information (K0)

Matrix Reasoning (I)

Figure Weights (RQ)

Digit Span (MS/MW)

Let-Num. Seq. (MW)

Dashed Gq broad ability arrow and oval, which is also deliberately set off to the left side, designates that math achievement abilities are typically found in achievement tests, but have been shown to be measured by some tests in some cognitive/IQ batteries

Dashed multiple rectangles for Arithmetic subtest reflects conclusion that Arithmetic is factorially complex and has been suggested to tap 2-4 different broad Gf-Gc broad domains. This was evident in the preceding analysis and prior Wechsler joint or cross-battery factor analysis studies that have included a greater breadth of ability indicators, particularly Gq. See Wechsler related posts at IQs Corner blog (www.iqscorner.com) for information on these studies and McGrew & Flanagan (1998) and Flanagan, McGrew & Ortiz ( 2000) synthesis of this research.

http://www.iqscorner.com/

g

Gq KM A3




I RG RP RE



Gsm MS MW

GsR9 N P

GtR1 R2 R4 R7

WAIS-IV CHC Analysis Summary (© K. McGrew 9-13-10 Rev.)C

ogn

itiv

e O

per

ati

on

sA

cqu

ired

Kn

ow

led

ge

Cogn

itiv

e E

ffic

ien

cy

FA

Gf RQ

Gkn ? ? ? ?

Gh KS ? ? ?

Gk TS ? ? ?

Go OM OS ? ?

Gp P1 P2 P3 P4 P6 P7 P8 A1 A4

Gps R3 WS PT MT ? ? ? ? ?

EF/AC ? ? ? ?

Oth

er/n

ew

Two (of many) advantages of CHC-based analysis IQ test batteries

Understanding and comparing IQ scores across editions within the same IQ battery

Understanding and comparing IQ scores between different IQ batteries

IQ test CHC DNA Fingerprints

Gc Gv Gs Gq Gsm Gf Glr Ga

1949 50 30 10 5 5 0 0 0

1974 50 30 10 5 5 0 0 0

1991 50 30 10 5 5 0 0 0

2003 30 15 15 0 20 20 0 0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

% C

HC

co

ntr

ibu

tio

n t

o F

S IQ

WISCWISC-RWISC-IIIWISC-IV

The evolution of the CHC ability content of the various WISC FS IQ scores© Institute for Applied Psychometrics, Kevin McGrew, 2-5-2010

Gf Gq Gc Glr Ga Gv Gsm Gs Grw Gk

WJ-III/BAT-III 18.0% 0.0% 20.0% 17.0% 12.0% 10.0% 13.0% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0%

WAIS-IV 10.0% 5.0% 30.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 15.0% 20.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

% C

HC

bro

ad

ab

ilit

ies r

ep

res

en

ted

b

y W

AIS

-IV

an

d W

J I

II IQ

s

co

re

Broad CHC cognitive

ability domains

Gc = comprehension-knowledge

Gv = visual-spatial processing

Gs = processing speed

Ga = auditory processing

Gsm = Short-term memory

Gf = fluid reasoning

Glr = long-term storage/retrieval

Gq = quantitative knowledge

Grw = reading/writing

Gk =domain specific knowledge

Comparing global IQ score compositions from two different IQ test

batteries (WAIS-IV & WJ III)

Gc Gv Gs Ga Gsm Gf Glr Gq

WJ-R/BAT-R 14.3% 14.3% 14.3% 14.3% 14.3% 14.3% 14.3% 0.0%

TONI-2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

% C

HC

bro

ad

ab

ilit

ies

re

pre

se

nte

d in

IQ

sc

ore

IQ Test CHC DNA Fingerprint comparison of proportional coverage

of broad CHC ability domains for BAT-R and TONI-2

© Institute for Applied Psychometrics (IAP) llc Kevin McGrew, 2-6-2010

Broad CHC cognitive

ability domains

Gc = comprehension-knowledge

Gv = visual-spatial processing

Gs = processing speed

Ga = auditory processing

Gsm = Short-term memory

Gf = fluid reasoning

Glr = long-term storage/retrieval

Gq = quantitative knowledge

Comparing IQ‟s from special purpose and comprehensive test batteries

CHC analysis of select commonly used

neuropsychological tests and test batteries

This is preliminary “work in progress”

I am NOT a neuropsychologist – looking for feedback and

expertise to refine

Goal is to demonstrate/model a “mode of thinking &

process” for NP‟s to apply CHC theory to their

assessments

• Time constraints makes it impossible to cover all the major

NP tests and batteries commonly used.

Trail Making Tests: CHC task-analysis and

CHC-grounded follow-up testing example

• Cognitive processing speed (Gs)

• Psychomotor (fine) speed, dexterity (Gps)

• Visual scanning, visual search (Gv-SS)

• Attention-sustained visual, attention-shifting (AC)

• EF- executive control, cognitive flexibility, inhibition-disinhibition ( )

TMT: Common neuropsychological interpretations/hypothesis viewed with

CHC lens (First cut CHC thoughts)

Hoelzle(2008) has done (albeit on a smaller scale) for neuropsychological datasets what Carroll (1993) did in his seminal EFA of cognitive ability datasets

This served as the starting point for the current NP-CHC linkage work

But, there are some caveats re: Hoelzel analyses due to constraints of secondary data analysis (I went

beyond and “tweaked” his conclusions)

• Insufficient markers of some CHC domains – factors could not

emerge (results in some amalgam factors)

• Lack of indicators of CHC domains of Gp, Gps, Go, Gh, Gk

(Hoelzle, 2008)

(Hoelzle, 2008)

77 separate EFA secondary analysis reported !!!!!!

GsmGf Gs

Hoelzle (2008) apriori CHC task analysis hypotheses: TMT (Trail Making Test) example

Hoelzle (2008) EFA secondary analysis summary of five datasets meeting criteria that included TMT test(s)

Gs Glr

Gs Glr

Hoelzle (2008) EFA secondary analysis summaries of

datasets that included TMT test(s)

Gsm,Ga?GsGf

GlrGf,Gv,

Gs

Hoelzle (2008) EFA secondary analysis

summaries of datasets that included TMT test(s)

Gh,Gv/Gf,

Gs ? Gc Gf? Gps

Hoelzle (2008) EFA secondary analysis

summaries of datasets that included TMT test(s)

Gs

Hoelzle (2008) empirical EFA-based CHC conclusions: TMT test

Primarily Gs

Test: Trail Making Test(s) (TMT) NP construct(s): Attention/Exec. Function.

Primary CHC interpretation

Broad CHC domain(s) and brief definition CHC (broad+narrow) task analysis & hypotheses

Gs: Processing speedThe ability to automatically and fluently perform relatively easy or over-learned elementary cognitive tasks, especially when high mental efficiency (i.e., attention and focused concentration) is required.

Gs: Perceputal Speed--Memory (Pm)—the ability to perform visual perceptual speed tasks that place significant demands on immediate short-term or working memory (Gsm)

• Attention-sustained-visual, attention-shifting (AC)• Psychomotor (fine) speed, dexterity(Gps) • Visual scanning, visual search (Gv-SS)• EF- executive control, cognitive flexibility, inhibition-disinhibition ( )

Secondary CHC considerations

• Gps: The ability to rapidly and fluently perform physical body motor movements (e.g., movement of fingers, hands, legs) largely independent of cognitive control.• Gv-SS (Spatial Scanning): Ability to quickly and accurately survey (visually explore) a wide or complicated spatial field or pattern and identify a particular configuration (path) through the visual field. Usually requires visually following the indicated route or path through the visual field.

Possible (select) follow-up measures of CHC abilities measured

Gs Wech. Symbol Search, Coding, Cancellation; WJ III Visual Matching, Cross Out, Pair Cancellation

Gv-SS D-KEFS TMT (Condition 1); KABC-II Rover; WJ III Planning (No AUS); NEPSY Route Finding; UNIT Mazes

EF/AC TEA-CH-Creature Counting; D-KEFS Design Fluency (Condition 3); WJ III Pair Cancellation; Wech. Cancellation

Gps Finger Tapping Test (FTT); Grooved Pegboard; Purdue Pegboard

Neuropsych. Test-CHC Analysis Summary: Trail Making Test( ©Institute for Applied Psychometrics, Kevin McGrew, 9-14-10)

g

Gq KM A3




I RG RP RE



Gsm MS MW

GsR9 N P

GtR1 R2 R4 R7

Trail Making Test (TMT) CHC Analysis Summary (© K. McGrew 9-13-10 Rev.)C

ogn

itiv

e O

per

ati

on

sA

cqu

ired

Kn

ow

led

ge

Cogn

itiv

e E

ffic

ien

cy

FA

Gf RQ

Gkn

Gh KS

Gk TS

Go OM OS

Gp P1 P2 P3 P4 P6 P7 P8 A1 A4

Gps R3 WS PT MT

EF/AC ? ? ? ?

Oth

er/n

ew

?

Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test (ROCF): CHC task-analysis

and possible CHC-grounded follow-up testing example

• Planning, organizational skills, and prob. solving strategies (EF, Gf, Gsm-MW)

• Visual memory (Gv-MV)

• Visual perceptual abilities (Gv-CS,MV,SS)

• Visual-spatial/constructional abilities (Gv-SR,Vz,IM; Gp)

•Motor ability (Gp)

• Episodic memory function (Glr-M6, MA)

• Incidental (vs intentional) learning (Glr-L1)

• Copy component (Gv, Gp)

• Recall (immediate, delayed) component (Glr-M6)

[Not including the “recognition memory” procedure in this presenation]

ROCF: Common neuropsychological interpretations/hypothesis viewed via

CHC lens: (First cut CHC thoughts)

Test: Rey-Osterrieth Complex Fig. Test (ROCF) (1/2)Copy component

NP construct(s): Memory & Learning (Visual, Vis-Spatial )/ Motor


Broad CHC domain(s) and brief definition CHC (broad+narrow) task-analysis & hypotheses

Gv: Visual-spatial processingThe ability to generate, store, retrieve, and transform visual images and sensations.

Gv: Spatial Relations (SR)—Ability to rapidly perceive and manipulate (mental rotation, transformations, reflection, etc.) visual patterns or to maintain orientation with respect to objects in space.

Gp: Psychomotor abilitiesThe ability to perform physical body motor movements (e.g., movement of fingers, hands, legs) with precision, coordination, or strength.

Gp: Finger Dexterity (P2)—The ability to make precisely coordinated movements of the fingers (with or without themanipulation of objects).


Gv-MV: Ability to form and store a mental representation or image of a visual shape or configuration (typically during a brief studyperiod), over at least a few seconds, and then recognize or recall it later (during the test phase).


Gv-SR DAS-II Patt. Construct; KABC-II Triangles; Leiter-R Fig. Rotation; SB5 Nonverbal Vis-Spat. Proc; UNIT Cube Design; Wech Block Design; WJ III Spatial Relations, Block Rotation

Gv-MV Benton Vis. Ret. Test (A,B,D;M); DAS-II Rec. of Designs, Recog. of Pict.; Leiter-R Forward Mem., Immediate Recog.; NEPSY Imit. Hand Positions; UNIT Spatial Mem., Symbolic Mem.; WJ III Pict. Recog.; WMS-III/IV Vis. Reprod. I/II; WRAML2 Design Mem., Pict. Mem.

Gp Bender Visual-Motor Gestalt II (BG-II) ; BO Fine Motor; DWSMB Construction (Cross & Clock); Full Range Test of Visual-Motor Integration (FRTVMI); NEPSY Design Copying; Test of Visual Motor Integration (VMI);

Neuropsych. Test-CHC Analysis Summary: ROCF Test( ©Institute for Applied Psychometrics, Kevin McGrew, 9-14-10)

Test: Rey-Osterrieth Complex Fig. Test (ROCF) (2/2)Recall component

NP construct(s): Memory & Learning (Visual/Vis-spatial)


Broad CHC domain(s) and brief definition CHC (broad+narrow) task-analysis & hypotheses

Gv: Visual-spatial processingThe ability to generate, store, retrieve, and transform visual images and sensations.

Gv: Visual Memory (MV)—Ability to form and store a mental representation or image of a visual shape or configuration (typically during a brief study period), over at least a few seconds, and then recognize or recall it later (test phase).

Glr: Long-term storage and retrievalThe ability to store and consolidate new information in long-term memory and later fluently retrieve the stored information through association.

Glr: Free Recall Memory (M6)—Ability to recall (without associations) as many unrelated items as possible, in any order, after a large collection of items is presented. Requires the ability to encode a “superspan collection of material” that cannot be kept active in short-term or working memory.


Gsm-MW: Ability to temporarily store and perform a set of cognitive operations on information that requires divided attention and the management of the limited capacity resources of Gsm. Is largely recognized to be the mind’s “scratchpad” and consists of up to four subcomponents (phonological or articulatory loop, visuospatial scratchpad, central,episodic buffer.).


Glr: M6 ??[Most all CHC classified M6 tests are verbal free recall tests..not visual]

Gv-MV [See ROCF Copy component summary table]

Gp [See ROCF Copy component summary table]

Gsm-MW DAS-II Rec. of Digits-Back, Rec. of Seq. Order; NEPSY Knock & Tap; Wech/WMS-III/IV Let-Num. Seq; WJ III Aud. Wrk. Mem; WJ III Num. Rev; WRAML2 Sym. Wrk. Mem, Verbal Wrk. Mem. [??Note – not aware of commercial visual working memory tests]

Neuropsych. Test-CHC Analysis Summary: ROCF Test( ©Institute for Applied Psychometrics, Kevin McGrew, 9-14-10)

g

Gq KM A3




I RG RP RE



Gsm MS MW

GsR9 N P

GtR1 R2 R4 R7

ROCF CHC Analysis Summary ( © K. McGrew 9-13-10 Rev.)C

ogn

itiv

e O

per

ati

on

sA

cqu

ired

Kn

ow

led

ge

Cogn

itiv

e E

ffic

ien

cy

FA

Gf RQ

Gkn ? ? ? ?

Gh KS ? ? ?

Gk TS ? ? ?

Go OM OS ? ?

Gp P1 P2 P3 P4 P6 P7 P8 A1 A4

Gps R3 WS PT MT ? ? ? ? ?

EF/AC ? ? ? ?

Oth

er/n

ew

CHC analysis of commonly used

neuropsychological test batteries:

Wechsler Memory Scales example

Battery: Wechsler Memory Scales—III/IV (1 of 3)Verb/Auditory tests

NP construct(s): Memory & Learning (Verbal-Auditory)


Broad CHC domain(s) and brief definition Individual test hypothesized narrow abilities(tests at bottom are factorially complex measures)

Glr: Long-term storage and retrievalThe ability to store and consolidate new information in long-term memory and later fluently retrieve the stored information (e.g., concepts, ideas, items, names) through association. Memory consolidation & retrieval can be measured in terms of information stored for minutes, hours, weeks, or longer.

• Logical Memory I & II (MM: Meaningful Memory)• Verbal Paired Associates I & II (MA: Associative Memory)• Word Lists I & II (M6: Free Recall Memory)

• Family Pictures II (Gv-MV & Glr-MM: Meaningful Memory)

Hypothesized narrow ability definitions

• MM: Ability to retain & recall information (set of items or ideas) when there is a meaningful relation between the bits of info., the information comprises a meaningful story or connected discourse, or the information relates to existing contents of memory.• MA: Ability to recall one part of a previously learned but unrelated pair of items (that may or may not be meaningfully linked) when the other part is presented (e.g., paired-associative learning).• M6: Ability to recall (without associations) as many unrelated items as possible, in any order, after a large collection of items ispresented (each item presented singly). Requires the ability to encode a “superspan collection of material” (Carroll, 1993, p. 277) that cannot be kept active in short-term or working memory.


MM WRAML2 Story Memory; WJ III Story Recall

MA KABC-II Atlantis, Rebus; WJ III Vis-Aud. Lrng, Mem. For Names; WRAML2 Sound Symbol

M6 California Verbal Learning Test-II (CVLT-II); Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT); WRAML2 Verbal Learning, Verbal Learning Recognition

Neuropsych. Test Battery -CHC Analysis Summary: WMS-III/IV Test( ©Institute for Applied Psychometrics, Kevin McGrew, 9-14-10)

Battery: Wechsler Memory Scales—III /IV (2 of 3)Visual tests

NP construct(s): Memory & Learning (Visual)



Gv: Visual-spatial processingThe ability to generate, store, retrieve, and transform visual images and sensations. Gv abilities are typically measured by tasks (viz., figural or geometric stimuli) that require the perception and transformation of visual shapes, forms, images, and/or tasks that require maintaining spatial orientation with regard to objects that may change or move through space.

• Visual Reproduction I/II (MV: Visual Memory)• Faces I/II (MV: Visual Memory)• Family Pictures I (MV: Visual Memory)

• Family Pictures II (Gv-MV & Glr-MM: Meaningful Memory)


• MV: Ability to form and store a mental representation or image of a visual shape or configuration (typically during a brief study period), over at least a few seconds, and then recognize or recall it later (during the test phase).


MV Benton Visual Retention Test (A,B,D;M); DAS-II Recall of Designs, Recognition of Pictures; Leiter-R Forward Memory, Immediate Recognition; NEPSY Imitating Hand Positions; Rey-Osterieth Complex Figure Test (ROCF); UNIT Spatial Memory, Symbolic Memory; WJ III Picture Recognition; WMS-III/IV? Visual Reproduction I/II; WRAML2 Design Memory, Picture Memory

MM WRAML2 Story Memory; WJ III Story Recall


Battery: Wechsler Memory Scales—III /IV (3 of 3)Working memory tests

NP construct(s): Memory & Learning (Short-term/Working Memory)



Gsm: Short-term memoryThe ability to apprehend and maintain awareness of a limited number of elements of info. in the immediate situation. A limited-capacity system that loses info. quickly through the decay of memory traces, unless an individual activates other cog. resources to maintain the info. in immediate awareness.

• Letter-Number Sequencing (MW: Working Memory)

• Digit Span (MS: Memory Span; MW: Working Memory)• Spatial Span (MV: Visual Memory; MW: Working Memory)


•MS: Ability to attend to, register, and immediately recall (after only one presentation) temporally ordered elements and then reproduce the series of elements in correct order. •MV: Ability to form and store a mental representation or image of a visual shape or configuration (typically during a brief study period), over at least a few seconds, and then recognize or recall it later (during the test phase).•MW: Ability to temporarily store and perform a set of cognitive operations on information that requires divided attention and the management of the limited capacity resources of Gsm. Is largely recognized to be the mind’s “scratchpad” and consists of up to four subcomponents (phonological or articulatory loop, visuospatial scratchpad, central,episodic buffer.).


MS DAS-II Rec. of Digits-Frwd; KABC-II Num. Recall; NEPSY Rep. of Nonsense Words, Sent. Rep; SB5 Nonverbal Wrk. Mem., Verbal Wrk. Mem.; WECH Digit Span (Forward); WJ III Mem. for Words, Mem. for Sent.; WRAML2 Num. Let., Sent. Mem.

MW DAS-II Rec. of Digits-Back, Rec. of Seq. Order; NEPSY Knock & Tap; Wech/WMS-III/IV Let-Num. Seq; WJ III Aud. Wrk. Mem; WJ III Num. Rev; WRAML2 Sym. Wrk. Mem, Verbal Wrk. Mem.

MV Benton Vis. Ret. Test (A,B,D;M); DAS-II Rec. of Designs, Recog. of Pict.; Leiter-R Forward Mem., Immediate Recog.; NEPSYImit. Hand Positions; Rey-Osterieth Complex Figure Test (recall) (ROCF); UNIT Spatial Mem., Symbolic Mem.; WJ III Pict. Recog.; WMS-III/IV Vis. Reprod. I/II; WRAML2 Design Mem., Pict. Mem.


g

Gq KM A3




I RG RP RE



Gsm MS MW

GsR9 N P

GtR1 R2 R4 R7

Cogn

itiv

e O

per

ati

on

sA

cqu

ired

Kn

ow

led

ge

Cogn

itiv

e E

ffic

ien

cy

FA

Gf RQ

Gkn ? ? ? ?

Gh KS ? ? ?

Gk TS ? ? ?

Go OM OS ? ?

Gp P1 P2 P3 P4 P6 P7 P8 A1 A4

Gps R3 WS PT MT

EF/AC ? ? ? ?

Oth

er/n

ew

WMS-III/IV CHC Analysis Summary (K. McGrew 9-13-10 Rev.)

This is research/work in progress: Suggested research

that needs to be explored and integrated. Go from here

to……………..

The WJ III (AUS Adaptation) is an ideal battery for following up NP assessment results when the focus is on:

(a) disentangling the different mixtures of multiple CHC abilities commonly found in NP tests or,

(b) conducting more in-depth focused (confirmatory?) assessment of NP identified CHC abilities of concern

Next slide shows summary of broad and narrow CHC abilities measured by the WJ III

Note: Conflict of interest disclosure

g

Gq KM A3




I RG RP RE



Gsm MS MW

GsR9 N P

GtR1 R2 R4 R7

Cogn

itiv

e O

per

ati

on

sA

cqu

ired

Kn

ow

led

ge

Cogn

itiv

e E

ffic

ien

cy

FA

Gf RQ

Gkn ? ? ? ?

Gh KS ? ? ?

Gk TS ? ? ?

Go OM OS ? ?

Gp P1 P2 P3 P4 P6 P7 P8 A1 A4

Gps R3 WS PT MT

EF/AC ? ? ? ?

Oth

er/n

ew

WJ III (Stnd+Ext Batteries) CHC Analysis Summary (K. McGrew 9-13-10 Rev.)

[Note. g (GIA) score does not include tests from Gq or Grw]

“ Tests do not think for themselves, nor do they directly communicate with patients. Like a stethoscope, a blood pressure gauge, or an MRI scan, a psychological test is a dumb tool, and the worth of the tool cannot be separated from the sophistication of the clinician who draws inferences from it and then communicates with patients and professionals”

Meyer et al. (2001). Psychological testing and psychological assessment. American Psychologist, February

http://www.vermont.co.uk/stethoscope.jpg

http://www.cames.org/images/pressure.gif

“ If you give a monkey a stradivarius violin and you get bad music……..you don’t

blame the violin”

McGrew (circa 1986)

Content/stimulus dimension

This is NOT a model of human functioning – it is a “working” heuristic of Kevin McGrew’s current hypothesized thinking (iteration 3?) regarding the important dimensions that may

be important in the development and interpretation of measures of human abilities …………. (not a Guilford SOI model where all cells are believed to exist)

Cognitive knowledge domains/systems

Cognitive operations

Cognitive control

Cognitive efficiency

Sensory functions

Motor functions

Ab

ilty

do

mai

n d

imen

sio

n

Typ

e I

Pro

cess

ing

Typ

e II

Pro

cess

ing

Note: CHC taxonomy is embedded in the ability domain dimension (see prior slides)

?: Is the low-how cog. complexity continuum simply a continuous representation

of the Type 1/I processing distinction ?

Iteration 2:

Hypothesized CHC-

based

Intelligence model

Plus mapping of

common neuropsych.

measurement domains

to hypothesized model

Kevin McGrew

8-18-2010

Lets look at the

pieces one by one –

blow them up

Cognitive Content/Stimulus Dimensions

Cog. Knowledge

Domains/SystemsLanguage Numerical - Visual- Somata- Olfactory

(aud-verb) Quantitative Figural sensory

General Acquired

Knowledge

Gc

Language/Verbal

Functions

Grw Ach (lang-based)

Gq

Ach (math

based)

(Gk, Gh, Go…?) ? ? ?

Domain-specific

Knowledge

Gkn ? ? ? ? ?


Cognitive Operations Language

(aud-verb)

Numerical -

Quantitative

Visual-

Figural

Somata-

sensory

Olfactory

Complex Reasoning

Gf (Lang+lng-based

complex Work. Mem.)

Concept

formation &

reasoning

(verbal)

Complex Reasoning

Gf (Quantitative)

Concept

formation &

reasoning

(quant/arith.)

Complex Reasoning

Gf (Visual-figural)

Concept

formation &

reasoning

(visual)

[Note. Empirical support for this three-way Gf breakdown will be presented in Saturday’s keynote address (Beyond CHC) ]


Cognitive Operations

(continued)

Language

(auditory-

verbal)

Numerical -

Quantitative

Visual-

Figural

Somata-

Sensory

Olfactory

Long-term storage

& retrieval (Glr)

Memory &

Learning

Memory &

Learning

Memory &

Learning ? ?

Processing

(Auditory) (Ga)

Auditory

Perception

Auditory-Verbal

Lang

(Phonological

processing)

Processing

(Visual-spatial) (Gv)

Visual-spatial

Construction?


Cognitive Efficiency

Language

(auditory-

verbal)

Numerical -

Quantitative

Visual-

Figural

Somata-

sensory

Olfactory

Short-term/Working

Memory (Gsm)

Memory Memory Memory ? ?

Processing Speed (Gs) • Speed &

efficiency?

• Executive

function?

• Attention?

• Speed &

efficiency?

• Executive

function?

• Attention?

• Speed &

efficiency?

• Executive

function?

• Attention?

? ?

Gs(Gc)

Gs(Grw)

Gs(Gq)

Gs(Gv)

Cognitive Control

Executive Functions Executive

function

Executive

function

Executive

function ? ?

Controlled Executive

Attention Attention Attention Attention

? ?


Sensory Language

(auditory-

verbal)

Numerical -

Quantitative

Visual-

Figural

Somata-

Sensory

Olfactory

Vision

Visual

acuity, etc.

Hearing

Auditory

acuity, etc.

Tactile (Gh)

Tactile

perception

Kinesthetic (Gk)

Body

orientation

Olfactory - (Go) Olfaction

Motor

Psychomotor Ablilities (Gp)

Psychomotor Speed (Gps)Motor functions (including speed)-Expressive across domains

Documents

New directions in neuropsychological assessment: Augmenting neuropsychological assessment with CHC cognitive measures