Intellect Model Research Articles

Editorial

Creativity is a concept that refuses to yield total analytic or experimental satisfaction, while at the same time remaining steadfast in our construction of musicality, musical works, and objectives in music education. As an idea, it emerged in the old factor psychology of a past century, reappeared in different guise in Guildford's 1967 Structure of the Intellect model with its divergent thinking as opposed to convergent thinking, and has surfaced again in the form of neo-factor psychology we call multiple intelligences. Each major development in our understanding of creativity has given us a better, even if not ultimate, grasp of what it is that makes for creativity's kind of pleasing, risk-taking, enlarging, simple, surprising innovation and opens up a new range of possibilities in both theory and practice. Many of our colleagues devote their academic careers to exploring creativity's manifestations, development, and assessment. And yet, despite normative and stipulative meanings of the word creativity, in thinking and doing we are still less likely to be able to say definitively what creativity is than we are to recognize it when we see it.

Millennium as Opportunity: Chaos, Creativity, and Guilford's Structure of Intellect Model

In this new millennium, our prospects for creative change may be particularly fluid. Chaos theory is used metaphorically to address aspects of creative process we therefore might note well, linking these both with (a) the operations, products, and contents dimensions of J. P. Guilford's structure of intellect (SI) model and (b) healthier balances we can create between Guilford's divergent and convergent production, both within individuals and cultures. Divergent production, a key operation in Guilford's model, may be viewed both as the major departure it was half a century ago and via the dramatic emergences we see today using a nonlinear dynamic of creativity. The intersection of divergent production with Guilford's products dimension might be linked to multiple creative processes we can ponder metaphorically as strange attractors, and attractor complexes, in a dynamic phase space of mind. Such attractors might trap as well as free us, however, and potential examples are given involving abstraction, unconscious processes, and socially restrictive models of normalcy. Next, Guilford's diverse content areas remind us of aspects of our-indeed, dynamically connected-experience as human beings that may be artificially disconnected and underemphasized in traditional education. All divergent processing operates within a larger context, and its tension with convergent processes contains potential for creative leaps and bifurcations, discussed at both the social and individual levels. Preliminary data on aesthetic preference suggest creative people also may seek challenges and chaotic attractors of higher "dimensionality"; this may help drive the process. Finally, a societal shift toward greater creative openness and growth is recommended, based on advantages for physical and psychological health, and clues to paths that nature finds adaptive. Chaos theory gives us models and metaphors based on an ever more rapid, sensitive, and holistic nonlinear creative process; this can honor one's mental history and complex preconditions while responding instantly to information as subtle as a puff of air. Now, when global change is needed badly, we can use this potential malleability to evolve together toward a healthier future.

Guilford's Structure of Intellect Model and Model of Creativity: Contributions and Limitations

J. P. Guilford has had an enormous influence on the psychology of creativity. In many ways, he is the father of modern creativity research. Yet his conception of creativity was, we suggest, flawed in certain respects. In this article, we discuss both the strengths and limitations of Guilford's approach to creativity.

Guilford's Concept of Social Intelligence Revisited

The purpose of this study was to verify, through the application of confirmatory factor analysis, Guilford's formulation of social intelligence as a multidimensional concept. O'Sullivan, Guildford and Demille (1965), using exploratory factor analysis, found six factors of cognitive social intelligence. Using LISREL, we reanalyzed their data and tested two distinctly different factor models: (1a) the orthogonal six‐factor model proposed by O'Sullivan et al., (1b) the same six‐factor model except that the factors were allowed to intercorrelate, and (2) a single‐factor model. The orthogonal six‐factor model did not fit the data and, although the oblique variant of this model was an improvement, the single‐factor model fitted the data better in addition to being more parsimonious. This suggests that Guilford's concept of social intelligence is unnecessarily complicated and exposes a weakness in his Structure of Intellect Model. On the positive side, measurement of cognitive social intelligence should be more straightforward and our findings indicate which of Guilford's recommended tests are the best to use.

Generalizability of component processes in intelligence as revealed by latency measures

In this study, we explored the relationships between the latencies of theoretically corresponding and noncorresponding component processes across a diverse task universe derived from Guilford's Structure of Intellect (SI) model. Seventy-two participants were presented a task universe that consisted of six componential tasks with a semantic or figural content and with an emphasis on either cognition, inductive reasoning, or evaluation operations. Latencies of 18 component processes were estimated from these componential tasks by means of multiple regression analysis and identified as encoding, searching, inference, mapping, application, comparison, and justification components. Canonical correlation analysis indicated that on a componential level the task universe showed to a certain extent diversity, suggesting that there was only a small bias in favor of finding convergent relationships. Multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analyses revealed a three-cluster solution of component processes, which were tentatively interpreted as an encoding, a reasoning, and an evaluation cluster. These results provide initial evidence that theoretically corresponding component processes were generalizable (convergent validity) and theoretically noncorresponding component processes were not generalizable (discriminant validity) across the given task universe.

Cognitive Abilities and Creative Behaviors: CAB‐5 and Consequences

Cognitive Abilities and Creative Behaviors: CAB‐5 and Consequences

Maximum likelihood confirmatory factor-analytic investigation of factors within Guilford's structure of intellect model.

Joreskog's confirmatory factor-analytic methodology was used to statistically test alternative hypotheses regarding the factor structure among tests of cognition, convergent production, and divergent production that underlies correlational data from the Aptitude Research Project. The conclusion is that neither the high-dimensional SI model nor the general factor model provided a plausible level of overall fit to the data. Suggestions for future research and results of exploratory factor analyses are presented

An Investigation of the Higher-Order Symbolic Factors of Cognition and Convergent Production within the Structure of Intellect Model

The purpose of the present study was to investigate the existence of higher-order factors within the cognition and convergent production operations and the products dimensions of the structure-of-intellect model (Guilford, 1967, 1977, 1980). From the original data presented by Guilford, Merrifield, Christensen, and Frick (1960) on a sample of 240 Aviation Officer Candidates and Naval Air Cadets, an intercorrelation matrix of the 24 tests designed to measure symbolic factors of cognition and convergent production was reanalyzed using the method of maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis via LISREL. Results indicated that for tests of symbolic content with varying products the distinction between higher-order cognition and convergent production factors was not compelling. In tests of symbolic cognition, models including the form of product afforded a superior fit over models without this inclusion. However, the higher intercorrelations among the product factors suggested that only two higher-order product factors are involved—a units factor and a non-units factor. Finally, strong evidence for a third-order symbolic factor was obtained.

Maximum likelihood confirmatory factor-analytic investigation of factors within Guilford's structure of intellect model.

Maximum likelihood confirmatory factor-analytic investigation of factors within Guilford's structure of intellect model.

Factors From The Structure Of Intellect Model Associated With Gifted Adolescents' Problem Finding In Science: Research With Westinghouse Science Talent Search Winners

The Journal of Creative BehaviorVolume 22, Issue 1 p. 42-54 Factors From The Structure Of Intellect Model Associated With Gifted Adolescents' Problem Finding In Science: Research With Westinghouse Science Talent Search Winners RENA F. SUBOTNIK, Corresponding Author RENA F. SUBOTNIKHunter College, City University of New York, 695 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10021.Search for more papers by this author RENA F. SUBOTNIK, Corresponding Author RENA F. SUBOTNIKHunter College, City University of New York, 695 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10021.Search for more papers by this author First published: March 1988 https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1988.tb01340.xCitations: 12AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume22, Issue1March 1988Pages 42-54 RelatedInformation

A Guide for Using Guilford's Structure of the Intellect Model in the Construction of Lesson Plans

A Guide for Using Guilford's Structure of the Intellect Model in the Construction of Lesson Plans

Applying piaget’s stages of intellectual development and guilford’s structure of intellect model to training instructional developers

This article states and gives evidence that (1) there is a set of underlying skills required by the instructional developer to enable him or her to learn and apply specific ID skills; (2) these underlying skills take the form of a cognitive strategy—an internal thought and control process; (3) this cognitive strategy underlying ID is an internal problem solving process; (4) the components of this internal problem solving thought and control process underlying ID can be identified based on the theoretical frameworks of (a) Piaget’s formal operational thought and (b) Guilford’s structure of intellect model. In addition, this article reports the results of a preliminary study that indicate a strong relationship between formal operational thought and the ability to do ID. This article concludes that: There is little evidence that the cognitive strategy underlying ID can be taught to adult learners at all, and, if it can be taught, it can only be done (a) indirectly, by providing favorable conditions through instructional strategies and (b) over a long period of learning and practice. Consequently (1) more research is necessary; (2) we should use instructional strategies that create “favorable conditions” for developing cognitive strategy in our students; and (3) if we cannot teach the internal problem solving cognitive strategy that underlies ID, then we must use it as a screening device when selecting students for graduate ID programs.

Guilford's Facet Theory Of Intelligence: An Empirical Comparison Of Models.

A general linear model was described for tests constructed in a facet design. Guilford's structure of intellect model and an alternative model were specified as special cases. From the Guilford research seven data sets were selected such that both models could be compared. The comparison was done with oblique and orthogonal factors. Using covariance structure analysis the fit of the models was assessed, and the parameters estimated. Models with orthogonal factors did not fit the data. The fit of the oblique Guilford model was better than the alternative oblique model. For three of the data sets the oblique Guilford model yielded an acceptable fit to the data with parameter estimates that could be interpreted by the structure of intellect model.

Learning Disabilities: A Diagnostic and Educational Challenge

Learning disabilities is presented as a construct supported by psychoeducational, socioemotional, and physiological data, as illustrated by the Meeker paradigm. Specific learning abilities as conceived in the Structure of Intellect (S.O.I.) model and identified in the Stanford-Binet and Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised are discussed in relation to the psychoeducation area of the Meeker paradigm. The absence of specific S.O.I. learning abilities is proposed in the definition of learning disabilities, and suggestions for remediation are delineated.

A CHECK ON THE THEORY OF FLUID AND CRYSTALLIZED INTELLIGENCE WITH DESCRIPTION OF NEW SUBTEST DESIGNS

Several important theories about human abilities contend in the field today. Salient features of these theories have been explicated and critically evaluated in several recent publications. For example, Horn (1972, 1976, 1977a, 1977b, 1978a, 1978b) has considered the evidence in relation to the classical theories of general intelligence, Thurstone's primary mental abilities structure, the hierarchical theories of the British psychologists (Burt & Vernon) and Humphreys, the Piagetian system, Guilford's structure of intellect model, Guttman's analytic/achievement distinction, and Jensen's level I/level II conception. Matarazzo (1972) has looked at much of this evidence from the position of one presenting a new handbook for the Wechsler scales. Cattell (1963, 1971) and Horn (1968, 1970, 1972, 1974, 1975, 1977a, 1978a, 1978b) have evaluated the evidence in terms of theories of fluid (Gf) and crystallized (Gc) intelligence. Several recent efforts have been directed at linking together the evidence and theory deriving from study of information processing or cognitive psychology, on the one hand, and the study of individual differences, on the other hand (Carroll, 1976; Horn, 1978c; Hunt, 1978; Sternberg, 1977). The hypotheses of these theories that pertain to organization among abilities are of major importance for understanding the present study. The classical viewpoint (Spearman-Binet-Wechsler) is still quite influential, particularly in applied settings. The major concept of this kind of theory is a single general factor of intelligence comprised of a collection of abilities. A concept of general intelligence is also an important feature of Piagetian theory, but in place of a collection of abilities this theory postulates a collection of schemata, these being cognitive laws in accordance with which a person explains or understands his conception of reality. In Guilford's model the domain of behavior represented by a general intellective factor is described in terms of a large number of distinct abilities said to be indicated by uncorrelated factors. This theory can be viewed as one of several efforts to deal with the proliferation of ability factors presented to the literature since the modern computer came on the scene (Humphreys, 1962). Other notable

An Exploratory Study of the Effects of Games On the Development of Cognitive Skills in Young Children

This study deals with the effects of games on the development of analytic thinking and problem solving skills in young children. Eight tasks were constructed, based on Guilford's Structure of the Intellect (SOI) model and following an SOI analysis of the games used in the Program. These tasks were administered on a post-only basis to Grade One project and comparison groups. Analysis of variance demonstrated that the project group significantly out-performed the comparison group on two of the eight activities, suggesting improvement in the cognitive operation of Evaluation. The methodology, discussed in detail in this exploratory study, will be useful in future studies.

SIX FACTORS OF BEHAVIORAL COGNITION: UNDERSTANDING OTHER PEOPLE*

In her recent presidential address to the American Association for Higher Education, K. Patricia Cross (1974) pointed out that present models of education overemphasize the narrow band of human abilities that enable to perform academic tasks. She suggested a three-dimensional model that prepares to with data, with things, and with people. In Cross' view the task of education is to develop the student's ability to the point of excellence in one area and to prepare him or her to live in today's world by developing at least minimum competence in the other two (p. 4). If these suggestions are to be implemented by educators, they require means of conceptualizing and measuring the abilities involved in each of these three areas so that appropriate curricula may be developed. More than fifty years ago, E. L. Thorndike (1920) suggested that human is composed of three aspects: abstract, mechanical, and (paralleling the skills outlined by Cross). Although both abstract and mechanical have been successfully measured, early attempts to develop independent measures of had not been successful. Both R. L. Thorndike (1936) and Woodrow (1939) found that tests designed to measure were loaded on factors defined by verbal-ability tests. The present study is one contribution to the conceptualization and measurement of some of the abilities involved in the task of working with people. In our view, Thorndike's social intelligence and Cross's work with people are too general to be of practical value over and above naming the domain of interest. Observing interacting with other suggests that there are a number of different ways of being socially intelligent. As Argyle (1972) has noted, Clearly most are better at some tasks than others .... There are, for example, who are better at handling audiences, or committees, than at dealing with individualsor vice versa (p. 77). Some are astute in understanding or cognizing what others think and feel, but for reasons of timidity or poor training do not behave well in situations. Others, while not particularly perceptive of others' feelings and thoughts, are socially poised and well-informed. Some individuals, such as successful statesmen, can produce many different solutions to a problem. One of the few theories of human that includes abilities is Guilford's (1967) Structure of Intellect (SI) model. The Structure of Intellect postulates 120 different factors of intellectual ability organized along three dimensions:

Reliability and Validity of a Cross-Modal Test of Spatial Ability

The reliability of a cross-modal test of spatial ability, adapted from Space Relations of the Differential Aptitude Test and determined on 86 college freshmen was .92. The validity coefficient of correlation between the DAT original and the adapted test was .75. The cross-modal test correlated .50 with the cognition of figural transformation ability of Guilford's Structure of the Intellect Model.

Interrelationships among Intelligence, Product Dimension of Guilford's Model and Multi-Level Measure of Cognitive Functioning

Investigated were the interrelationships for 125 Grade 11 students among a conventional measure of intelligence, 6 measures of verbal creative behavior reflecting the product dimension of Guilford's Structure of Intellect Model, and 6 measures of cognitive functioning, based on Bloom's taxonomy for the cognitive domain. Conventional intelligence was more highly associated with the four most basic levels of functioning, while creativity was more highly associated wth the two higher levels. Further analyses indicated the independence of these two types of function and that two independent levels of creative behavior which are independent of intelligence are tapped by the 6 creativity measures.

Rater agreements in assigning stanford-binet items to Guilford's structure of intellect operations categories

Nineteen school psychologists assigned the 142 items in the Form L-M of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale to the five Operations categories of Guilford's Structure of Intellect model, following flow charts prepared for this purpose by Meeker (1965). On the average, one rater agreed with another on about half the items, and their modal assignments agreed with Meeker's (1969) assignments on only 81 (57%) of the items. These levels of agreement are judged not to be high enough to justify classifying Stanford-Binet items in accordance with the Structure of Intellect Operations categories.