The Genevan and Cattell-Horn conceptions of intelligence compared: Early implementation of numerical solution aids.

Abstract

The Genevan and Cattell-Horn theories of intelligence are compared. The theories are found to be similar in the following respects: Intelligence (operative intelligence and fluid ability) is conceptualized as adaptational in function; the products of everyday learning and crystallized skills reflect the impress of experience; one category of intelligence (operative intelligence, fluid ability) is conceptualized as prior or more fundamental than the other (learned products, crystallized skills). Important differences were also found: Whereas fluid is characterized as formless and fixed, operative intelligence is viewed as structured and evolving; compensatory relation between crystallized skills and fluid is hypothesized where such relation is not conceived to exist between operative intelligence and learning. The relation of Piagetian operative level to the child's capacity to use crystallized solution procedures (aids) in making elementary numerical comparisons was investigated. Performance on quantitative comparison tasks reflecting the child's understanding of correspondence relations was related to operative level. It was also found that the child's capacity to implement solution aids in making quantitative comparisons was, to some extent, moderated by his or her level of operative development. Matarazzo (1972), without explicitly describing how they are akin, suggested that there are parallels in the theories of intelligence developed by Piaget and by Cattell and Horn. It is the purpose of this article to outline the similarities in the two theories of intelligence and to examine key difference. A brief description of the two viewpoints follows. Cattell-Horn theory is conceptualized in terms of two major interrelated components of intelligence. In factor analytic studies, the components, fluid and crystallized abilities, manifest themselves as two highly cooperative second-order factors (Cattell, 1963). The crystallized factor loads more those cognitive performances in which skilled judgment habits have become crystallized (whence its name) as the result of [the] earlier learning application of some prior, more fundamental general ability (Cattell, 1963, pp. 2-3). Cattell (1963) asserted that crystallized also derives from the application of earlier acquired crystallized skills. In other words, the crystallized factor is conceived as a precipitate out of experience (Horn, 1967). Crystallized constitutes more than mere rote learning. It encompasses knowledge-producing, or, in Cattell's words, noegenetic proThis article is based on substantive reanalysis of data collected in one of the studies conducted for my doctoral dissertation. The dissertation was submitted to the City University of New York in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the PhD degree. I extend appreciation to the following individuals who read various versions of the article: Harry Beilin, Geoffrey Saxe, George Schonfeld, and Pearl Knopf. I extend special thanks to Jan Powell and an anonymous reviewer for their valuable criticisms. The reanalysis was supported by NIMH grants 5 T32 MH13043-13 and MH30906.