This is a presentation I made at the 2010 CNN conference in Fremantle Australia. It is an attempt to integrate CHC with neuropsychological assessment, with an emphasis on how NP tests can be interpreted from the CHC intelligence model which serves as a foundation for follow-up testing of NP tests with CHC measures.

1. 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

2. Stay informed

3. Overview of today’s presentation 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

4. “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.

5. Three things (or major steps) completed that have resulted in the intelligence model(s) to be presented today

6. 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

7. Overview of today’s presentation 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

8. The Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory of cognitive abilities is the contemporary consensus psychometric model of the structure of human intelligence The CHC Timeline Project (and detailed information re: CHC theory/model)can be found at IQ’s Corner blog www.iqscorner.com

9. g T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T1 T12 T10 T11 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T1 T12 T10 T11 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T1 T12 T10 T11 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T1 T12 T10 T11 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T1 T12 T10 T11 PMA1 PMA2 PMA3 PMA4 PMA1 PMA2 PMA3 PMA4 PMA1 PMA2 PMA3 PMA4 PMA1 PMA2 PMA3 PMA4 …etc (1b) Thurston’s Multiple Factor (Primary Mental Abilities) Model …etc (1a) Spearman’s general Factor model G1 G2 G3 …etc …etc …etc g ? …etc G1 G2 G3 …etc …etc (1e) Consensus Cattell-Horn-Carroll Hierarchical Three-Stratum Model Arrows from g to each test (rectangle) have been omitted for readability Stratum III g G1 Stratum II G2 …etc Stratum I …etc …etc (1d) Carroll’s Schmid-Leiman Hierarchical Three-Stratum Model (1c) Cattell-Horn Gf-Gc Hierarchical Model Stratum III 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 II Stratum I Figure 1: Major stages in the evolution of psychometric theories from Spearman’s g to Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory

10. CHC theory has entered the mainstream neuropsychological assessment literature

11. CHC theory has entered the mainstream neuropsychological assessment literature

12. A landmark event in understanding the structure of human cognitive abilities - 1993

13. 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”

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

15. ...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)

17. T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T1 T12 T10 T11 PMA1 PMA2 PMA3 PMA4 g ? …etc G1 G2 G3 …etc …etc (1e) Consensus Cattell-Horn-Carroll Hierarchical Three-Stratum Model CHC as the consensus psychometric model of intelligence 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)

18. T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T1 T12 T10 T11 PMA1 PMA2 PMA3 PMA4 g ? …etc G1 G2 G3 …etc …etc (1e) Consensus Cattell-Horn-Carroll Hierarchical Three-Stratum Model 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.]

19. T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T1 T12 T10 T11 PMA1 PMA2 PMA3 PMA4 g ? …etc G1 G2 G3 …etc …etc (1e) Consensus Cattell-Horn-Carroll Hierarchical Three-Stratum Model CHC as the consensus psychometric model of 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. Burns T. Nettlebeck L. Stankov R. Roberts S. Bowden

20. 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 astaxonomy(Bailey, 1994; Prentky, 1994) is ubiquitous in all fields of study because it guides our search for information or truth.

21. T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T1 T12 T10 T11 PMA1 PMA2 PMA3 PMA4 Arrows from g to each test (rectangle) have been omitted for readability Stratum III g G1 Stratum II G2 …etc Stratum I …etc …etc Carroll’s Schmid-Leiman Hierarchical Three-Stratum Model (T# = designates different test measures) (PMA# = different “primary mental ability”)

23. Carroll and Cattell-Horn Model Comparison g Gf Gy Gv Gs Gt Gc Gr Gu Carroll Broad Retrieval Ability Broad Cognitive Speediness Broad Auditory Perception Fluid Intelligence Gen. Memory & Learning Dec/Reaction Time/Speed Broad Visual Perception Crystallized Intelligence CDS Gf Gq Gsm Gv Ga Gs Grw Gc Glr Cattell-Horn Correct Decision Speed Crystallized Intelligence Fluid Intelligence Quantitative Knowledge Visual Processing Auditory Processing Processing Speed Short-Term Memory Long-Term Retrieval Reading/ Writing

24. 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.

25. CHC theory “has formed the foundation for most contemporary IQ tests” (Kaufman, 2009, p. 91) 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.

27. Table of broad and narrow CHC abilities and definitions is included in your handout packet Also available at: www.iapsych.com/aus1b.pdf

28. g McGrew Table of CHC Gf-Gc Cognitive Elements (© Kevin McGrew 3-25-99; 9-13-10 Rev.) KM A3 Gq LD K0 VL LS K1 K2 LA A5 CM OP MY KL Gc Acquired Knowledge RC SG V RD CZ RS WA EU Grw PC US UR U3 UM UK UL U1/9 U8 U6 U5 UA/T/U UP Ga I RG RP RE RQ Gf Cognitive Operations Vz SR MV CS SS CF PI LE IL PN IM Gv M6 MA L0 MM FE FI FF FX FO SP OP FW NA FA Glr Gsm MS MW R9 N P Gs Cognitive Efficiency Other/new R1 R2 R4 R7 Gt

30. Psychometric vs. neuropsychological conception/model assessment gap “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)

32. NP assessment has been traditionally non-theoretical---popular models of intelligence and cognitive abilities have been derived via statistical procedures

34. Horizontalmultiple regression (aptitude/functional/pragmatic) model Criterion DVs Gf Gc Glr G.. Gsm Gv etc Attn 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?)

37. Lezak et al. (2004)

38. Rabin et al. (2005)

39. Shaghnessy & O’Connor (2009)

40. Miller (2010)

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

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

44. Arm-chair factor analysis of neuropsych. assessment domains [and CHC construct mapping] (K. McGrew; 8-18-10) [I of 3] Gs Gsm AC ?? Gp Gps Go Gh Gk

45. Overview of today’s presentation 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

50. MDS – Multidimensional scaling analysis (Guttman Radex model)

51. CA – Cluster analysis(the results of these analyses follow on next series of slides)

52. 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 5-factor solution 4-factor solution

53. MDS (Guttman Radex model) of WAIS-IV subtest intercorrelations 3 Short-term memory /working memory (Gsm) 1 Processing speed (Gs) LN DS CD Verbal know & comp (Gc) VC CO Dimension-2 Fluid reasoning (Gf) AR MR CA SS SI IN FW BD VP -1 PCM Visual-spatial processing (Gv) -3 -3 -1 1 3 Dimension-1

54. WAIS-IV test Cluster Tree (Wards method) of WAIS-IV subtest intercorrelations Verbal know & comp (Gc) IN CO VC Level (unspeeded) cognitive abilities SI Short-term & working memory (Gsm) LN DS AR Fluid Reasoning (Gf) FW MR Visual-Spatial Proc.(Gv) BD VP General Intelligence (g) as per WAIS-IV ? PCM CD Processing Speed (Gs) (rate cognitive abilities) SS CA 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 Distances

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

56. K. McGrew’s WAIS-IV Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) summary conclusion (Kevin McGrew 11-4-09; 9-14-10 Rev) 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) Digit Span (MS/MW) Let-Num. Seq. (MW) g Matrix Reasoning (I) Figure Weights (RQ) Arithmetic (K0) Arithmetic (MS/MW) Arithmetic (A3) Arithmetic (RQ) Gq Gsm Ga Gv Glr Gs Gf Gc 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.

57. WAIS-IV CHC Analysis Summary (© K. McGrew 9-13-10 Rev.) g KM A3 Gq LD K0 VL LS K1 K2 LA A5 CM OP MY KL Gc Acquired Knowledge RC SG V RD CZ RS WA EU Grw PC US UR U3 UM UK UL U1/9 U8 U6 U5 UA/T/U UP Ga I RG RP RE RQ Gf Cognitive Operations Vz SR MV CS SS CF PI LE IL PN IM Gv M6 MA L0 MM FE FI FF FX FO SP OP FW NA FA Glr Gsm MS MW R9 N P Gs Cognitive Efficiency Other/new R1 R2 R4 R7 Gt

58. 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

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

60. Comparing global IQ score compositions from two different IQ test batteries (WAIS-IV & WJ III)

61. Comparing IQ’s from special purpose and comprehensive test batteries 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 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

64. Psychomotor (fine) speed, dexterity (Gps)

65. Visual scanning, visual search (Gv-SS)

66. Attention-sustained visual, attention-shifting (AC)

69. (Hoelzle, 2008) 77 separate EFA secondary analysis reported !!!!!!

70. Hoelzle (2008) aprioriCHC task analysis hypotheses: TMT (Trail Making Test) example Gsm Gf Gs

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

72. Gs Glr Hoelzle (2008) EFA secondary analysis summaries of datasets that included TMT test(s) Glr Gs

73. Gs Gsm,Ga? Gf Gf,Gv,Gs Glr Hoelzle (2008) EFA secondary analysis summaries of datasets that included TMT test(s)

74. Gh,Gv/Gf,Gs ? Gc ? Gf Gps Hoelzle (2008) EFA secondary analysis summaries of datasets that included TMT test(s)

75. Hoelzle (2008) empirical EFA-based CHC conclusions: TMT test Primarily Gs Gs

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

77. Trail Making Test (TMT) CHC Analysis Summary (© K. McGrew 9-13-10 Rev.) g KM A3 Gq LD K0 VL LS K1 K2 LA A5 CM OP MY KL Gc Acquired Knowledge RC SG V RD CZ RS WA EU Grw PC US UR U3 UM UK UL U1/9 U8 U6 U5 UA/T/U UP Ga I RG RP RE RQ Gf Cognitive Operations Vz SR MV CS SS CF PI LE IL PN IM Gv M6 MA L0 MM FE FI FF FX FO SP OP FW NA FA Glr Gsm MS MW R9 N P Gs Cognitive Efficiency Other/new R1 R2 R4 R7 Gt ?

78. Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test (ROCF): CHC task-analysis and possible CHC-grounded follow-up testing example

80. Visual memory (Gv-MV)

81. Visual perceptual abilities (Gv-CS,MV,SS)

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

83. Motor ability (Gp)

84. Episodic memory function (Glr-M6, MA)

85. Incidental (vs intentional) learning (Glr-L1)

86. Copy component (Gv, Gp)

87. Recall (immediate, delayed) component (Glr-M6)[Not including the “recognition memory” procedure in this presenation]

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

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

90. ROCF CHC Analysis Summary ( © K. McGrew 9-13-10 Rev.) g KM A3 Gq LD K0 VL LS K1 K2 LA A5 CM OP MY KL Gc Acquired Knowledge RC SG V RD CZ RS WA EU Grw PC US UR U3 UM UK UL U1/9 U8 U6 U5 UA/T/U UP Ga I RG RP RE RQ Gf Cognitive Operations Vz SR MV CS SS CF PI LE IL PN IM Gv M6 MA L0 MM FE FI FF FX FO SP OP FW NA FA Glr Gsm MS MW R9 N P Gs Cognitive Efficiency Other/new R1 R2 R4 R7 Gt

91. CHC analysis of commonly used neuropsychological test batteries: Wechsler Memory Scales example

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

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

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

95. WMS-III/IV CHC Analysis Summary (K. McGrew 9-13-10 Rev.) g KM A3 Gq LD K0 VL LS K1 K2 LA A5 CM OP MY KL Gc Acquired Knowledge RC SG V RD CZ RS WA EU Grw PC US UR U3 UM UK UL U1/9 U8 U6 U5 UA/T/U UP Ga I RG RP RE RQ Gf Cognitive Operations Vz SR MV CS SS CF PI LE IL PN IM Gv M6 MA L0 MM FE FI FF FX FO SP OP FW NA FA Glr Gsm MS MW R9 N P Gs Cognitive Efficiency Other/new R1 R2 R4 R7 Gt

96. This is research/work in progress: Suggested research that needs to be explored and integrated. Go from here to……………..

97. 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

98. WJ III (Stnd+Ext Batteries) CHC Analysis Summary (K. McGrew 9-13-10 Rev.) g [Note. g (GIA) score does not include tests from Gq or Grw] KM A3 Gq LD K0 VL LS K1 K2 LA A5 CM OP MY KL Gc Acquired Knowledge RC SG V RD CZ RS WA EU Grw PC US UR U3 UM UK UL U1/9 U8 U6 U5 UA/T/U UP Ga I RG RP RE RQ Gf Cognitive Operations Vz SR MV CS SS CF PI LE IL PN IM Gv M6 MA L0 MM FE FI FF FX FO SP OP FW NA FA Glr Gsm MS MW R9 N P Gs Cognitive Efficiency Other/new R1 R2 R4 R7 Gt

99. “ 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

100. “ If you give a monkey a stradivarius violin and you get bad music……..you don’t blame the violin” McGrew (circa 1986)

102. 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) Content/stimulus dimension Language (aud.-verb.) Numerical/quant. Somatasensory Visual-figural Olfactory ?: Is the low-how cog. complexity continuum simply a continuous representation of the Type 1/I processing distinction ? Cognitive knowledge domains/systems Cognitive operations Type II Processing Cognitive control High Abilty domain dimension Cognitive efficiency Sensory functions Low Type I Processing Motor functions Cognitve complexity dimension Note: CHC taxonomy is embedded in the ability domain dimension (see prior slides)

103. Iteration 2: Hypothesized CHC-based Intelligence model Plus mapping of common neuropsych. measurement domainsto hypothesized model Kevin McGrew 8-18-2010 Lets look at the pieces one by one – blow them up

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

108. Motor functions (including speed)-Expressive across domains