Survey Of Factor-analytic Studies Research Articles

"Revisiting Carroll's Survey of Factor-Analytic Studies: Implications for the Clinical Assessment of Intelligence": Correction to Benson et al. (2018).

Reports an error in "Revisiting Carroll's survey of factor-analytic studies: Implications for the clinical assessment of intelligence" by Nicholas F. Benson, A. Alexander Beaujean, Ryan J. McGill and Stefan C. Dombrowski (Psychological Assessment, Advanced Online Publication, May 24, 2018, np). In the article "Revisiting Carroll's Survey of Factor-Analytic Studies: Implications for the Clinical Assessment of Intelligence," by Nicholas F. Benson, A. Alexander Beaujean, Ryan J. McGill, and Stefan C. Dombrowski (Psychological Assessment, Advance online publication, May 24, 2018, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pas0000556), the majority of values in the ωH and ωHS columns of Table 4 were incorrect and have been amended. These revisions required text in the fourth paragraph of the Results section to be changed from "Moreover, the ωHS value for Gs is relatively high and very close to the and ωH values for g" to "Moreover, the ωHS values for Gs and Gv are relatively high, exceeding the ω and ωH values for g." All versions of this article have been corrected. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2018-23627-001.) John Carroll's three-stratum theory (and the decades of research behind its development) is foundational to the contemporary practice of intellectual assessment. The present study addresses some limitations of Carroll's work: specification, reproducibility with more modern methods, and interpretive relevance. We reanalyzed select data sets from Carroll's survey of factor analytic studies using confirmatory factor analysis as well as modern indices of interpretive relevance. For the majority of data sets, we found that Carroll likely extracted too many factors representing Stratum II abilities. Moreover, almost all factors representing Stratum II abilities had little-to-no interpretive relevance above and beyond that of general intelligence. We conclude by discussing the implications of this research with respect to the interpretive relevance and clinical utility of scores reflecting cognitive abilities at all strata of the three-stratum theory and offer some directions for future research. (PsycINFO Database Record

Revisiting Carroll’s survey of factor-analytic studies: Implications for the clinical assessment of intelligence.

[Correction Notice: An Erratum for this article was reported in Vol 30(8) of Psychological Assessment (see record 2018-37729-003). In the article "Revisiting Carroll's Survey of Factor-Analytic Studies: Implications for the Clinical Assessment of Intelligence," by Nicholas F. Benson, A. Alexander Beaujean, Ryan J. McGill, and Stefan C. Dombrowski (Psychological Assessment, Advance online publication, May 24, 2018, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pas0000556), the majority of values in the ωH and ωHS columns of Table 4 were incorrect and have been amended. These revisions required text in the fourth paragraph of the Results section to be changed from "Moreover, the ωHS value for Gs is relatively high and very close to the and ωH values for g" to "Moreover, the ωHS values for Gs and Gv are relatively high, exceeding the ω and ωH values for g." All versions of this article have been corrected.] John Carroll's three-stratum theory (and the decades of research behind its development) is foundational to the contemporary practice of intellectual assessment. The present study addresses some limitations of Carroll's work: specification, reproducibility with more modern methods, and interpretive relevance. We reanalyzed select data sets from Carroll's survey of factor analytic studies using confirmatory factor analysis as well as modern indices of interpretive relevance. For the majority of data sets, we found that Carroll likely extracted too many factors representing Stratum II abilities. Moreover, almost all factors representing Stratum II abilities had little-to-no interpretive relevance above and beyond that of general intelligence. We conclude by discussing the implications of this research with respect to the interpretive relevance and clinical utility of scores reflecting cognitive abilities at all strata of the three-stratum theory and offer some directions for future research. (PsycINFO Database Record

Cross-cultural differences in cognitive performance and Spearman's hypothesis: g or c?

Common tests of Spearman's hypothesis, according to which performance differences between cultural groups on cognitive tests increase with their g loadings, confound cognitive complexity and verbal–cultural aspects. The present study attempts to disentangle these components. Two intelligence batteries and a computer-assisted elementary cognitive test battery were administered to 474 second-generation migrant and 747 majority-group pupils in the Netherlands, with ages ranging from 6 to 12 years. Theoretical complexity measures were derived from Carroll [ Human cognitive abilities. A survey of factor-analytic studies. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press] and Fischer [Psychol. Rev. 87 (1980) 477]. Cultural loadings of all subtests were rated by 25 third-year psychology students. Verbal loading was operationalized as the number of words in a subtest. A factor analysis of the subtest loadings on the first principal component, the theoretical complexity measures, and the ratings of cultural loading revealed two virtually unrelated factors, representing cognitive ( g) and cultural complexity ( c). The findings suggest that performance differences between majority-group members and migrant pupils are better predicted by c than by g.

Vehicles of spatial ability

Spatial ability implies the generation, retention, retrieval, and transformation of visuo-spatial information. Factor analytic research has identified a broad array of spatial factors. Visualization (Vz) and Spatial relations (SR) are among the most cited. Dynamic spatial performance (DSP) has emerged in more recent times as a new strong candidate. However, there are some doubts about the existence of clear separate spatial factors. On the one hand, general spatial ability (Gv) has a substantial overlap with fluid reasoning (Gf). On the other hand, as Carroll's [Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: a survey of factor analytic studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press] survey notes, procedures of measurement are in need of considerable refinement. A battery of Vz, SR, and DSP spatial tests was applied in the present study to a sample of 105 undergraduates. The correlation matrix is analysed through a Schmid–Leiman hierarchical factor analysis, resulting in a powerful higher-order factor identified with Gv. First-order factors are shown as psychologically meaningless. Moreover, a confirmatory factor analysis demonstrates that a single endogenous factor, identified with Gv, predicts fairly well all the spatial markers. The correlation between the subjects' Gv factor scores and their scores in the Cattell's Culture Fair test shows a value of +0.6. Therefore, the study suggests that there is no clear separation among markers of some core spatial factors and that Gv strongly correlates with fluid ability (Gf).

The Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB): Little more than acculturated learning (Gc)!?

The Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) is administered to over 1 million participants in the USA each year, serving either as a screening test for military enlistees or as a guidance counseling device in high schools. In this paper, we examine the factorial composition of the ASVAB in relation to the theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence and Carroll's [1993. Human cognitive abilities: a survey of factor-analytic studies. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.] three-stratum model. In two studies ( N=349, N=6751), participants were administered both the ASVAB and tests designed to measure factors underlying these (largely) analogous models. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) of correlational data suggested that the ASVAB primarily measures acculturated learning [crystallized intelligence (Gc)]. This evidence does not support the frequent claim that this test measures psychometric g. Our conclusion is that the ASVAB should be revised to incorporate the assessment of additional broad cognitive ability factors, particularly fluid intelligence and learning and memory constructs, if it is to maintain its postulated function.

Book Review: Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor analytic studies

Book Review: Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor analytic studies

Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor analytic studies

(1998). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor analytic studies. Gifted and Talented International: Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 97-98.

The factor-analytic approach to intelligence is alive and well: A review of Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies.

For over 100 years, psychologists and their predecessors have struggled to uncov er the nature of human cognitive abilities. Is there a solitary facility - general intelligenc e - that underlies and is predominately responsible for an individual's performance on the multitude of human cognitive tasks? Or, at the other extreme, is there a plethora of distinct abili ties that may be deployed individually or in association? Or, is the explanation to be found some where in the middle or in some combination of these two accounts? Historically, the limits of the discussion are best represented by Spearman's (1927) two - factor theory and by Thomson's ( 1939) sampling theory. More recently, exponents of the two boundary positions include Jensen (1986) and Gardner (1983).During this century, with the refinement of factor - analytic techniques, severa l middle - ground theories were generated and have gained favour. These hierarchical theories ackn owledge the existence of numerous, relatively narrow, specific abilities along with broader, higher - order, factors that group the narrow abilities under them. The notion of a still higher - order single factor - general intelligence - has been a part of some of the hierarchical mode ls, but not of others (Royce & Powell, 1983; Vernon, 1961). Carroll's book represents a further maturation of such theories.The factor - analytic approach to cognitive abilities has not gone unchallenged, however. It has been pointed out that there are always an infinite number of mathematical soluti ons and several logical solutions for any given data set. Thus, the validity of any one model co uld not be decided upon by subsequent factor - analytic studies. Nor could ensuing factor - analyti c studies yield evidence for determining which model was a more accurate depiction of the mind's structure. Additionally, some critics have contended that any particular derived factor str ucture may be a mere artifact of the specific analysis and the set of tasks sampled, rather than being a reflection of an actual underlying cognitive structure. Some psychologists have suggested t hat the factor - analytic approach has run its course and can do no more. Due in part to these c riticisms, a parallel approach based on experimental cognitive psychology has gained populari ty during the past two decades. Carroll's book may also be viewed as an attempt to answer thes e criticisms, to incorporate the experimental work, and to demonstrate that the factor - analy tic approach continues to be useful endeavour to understand the nature of human cognitive abi lities.Carroll divides his book into three parts. The first is a historical and concept ual review of psychometric theory. Carroll begins by clearly defining and differentiating key concepts such as ability, aptitude, achievement, latent trait, and intervening variable, altho ugh recognizing that in practice it is often difficult to make distinctions. His treatment o f psychometric theory would provide even a layperson with a clear conceptual introduction as to how abilities can be differentiated and their associations recognized. Although his historical discussion furnishes a chronology of technical progress, given the controversies associated with the testing movement, the discussion appears a trifle sanitized. Carroll treats the methods and theories of authors such as Galton, Burt, Spearman, and Binet as if methods and models could be examined independently of assumptions concerning the origins of individual abilities.The second part, and the bulk of the book, is a detailed analysis and synthesis of a myriad of findings in the area of cognitive abilities. This herculean undertaking examinin g 467 datasets - 485 pages - is the primary contribution of the book. Carroll identifies over 60 specific (first - order) factors. They range in specialty from Piagetian reasoning to absolute pitch, and from lexical knowledge to choice reaction time. …