Two Theories, Two Tests, One Outcome: Indifference of the Indicator

Abstract

ABSTRACT Objective This study sought to investigate if the constructs measured by the MAB II and the MicroCog are related. The similarity of two tests designed using two theories was examined. Background Distinctions between tests of general cognitive ability (g) versus specific abilities (s) have been investigated for over a century. The Multidimensional Aptitude Battery used the individual differences psychometric approach while the MicroCog used a brain-behavior relationships approach. The authors of the tests claim they measure differing constructs based on differing theories; individual differences versus brain-behavior relations. Methods Both tests were administered to 10,612 participants. Correlations suggested the tests shared a common source of variance for the constructs measured. Confirmatory factor analyses established this and established a hierarchical structure with g at the apex. The test designed to measure specific abilities (MicroCog) measured a single factor, g. Results Although different theories underlie their respective construction methods, results indicated the two tests measured much in common; that is, two theories, one outcome. Conclusions Despite the assertions of the publishers of the two tests of differences, practitioners gain little by using both tests as they both measure the same constructs.