This article reviews factor-analytic research on individually administered intelligence tests from a Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) perspective. Although most new and revised tests of intelligence are based, at least in part, on CHC theory, earlier versions generally were not. Our review suggests that whether or not they were based on CHC theory, the factors derived from both new and previous versions of most tests are well explained by the theory. Especially useful for understanding the theory and tests are cross-battery analyses using multiple measures from multiple instruments. There are issues that need further explanation, of course, about CHC theory and tests derived from that theory. We address a few of these issues including those related to comprehension-knowledge (Gc) and memory factors, as well as issues related to factor retention in factor analysis. C 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.It has been 20 years since the publication of the Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational BatteryRevised (WJ-R; Woodcock & Johnson, 1989), the Þrst individually administered test of intelligence based explicitly on Cattell and Horn's extended Gf-Gc theory. In addition, it has been more than 15 years since the publication of Carroll's Human Cognitive Abilities (Carroll, 1993), a monumental study that both presented three-stratum theory and supported key aspects of Gf-Gc theory. As chronicled by McGrew (2005), many currently refer to the combination of these theories as CattellHorn-Carroll, or CHC, theory; we will do so here, although we will occasionally make the distinction between Gf-Gc, three-stratum, and CHC theory. This article will generally reference CHC abilities using abbreviations, without elaboration; more information about the CHC abilities can be found in the introduction to this special issue (Newton & McGrew, 2010).Most new and revised individually administered tests of intelligence are either based on CHC theory or pay allegiance to the theory. Even the latest versions of the traditional, and traditionally atheoretical, Wechsler scales reference CHC theory in their manuals (Wechsler, 2003(Wechsler, , 2008. Test users may legitimately wonder whether this adherence to CHC theory is well founded-that is, do these modern tests of intelligence in fact measure constructs consistent with CHC theory? Furthermore, how has the development of CHC-consistent tests informed the further development and reÞnement of CHC theory? The Þrst purpose of this article will be to review research on current and previous versions of individually administered intelligence tests within the context of CHC theory. Our review will focus on whether factor analyses of these tests support predictions derived from CHC theory-whether those tests were developed based on the theory or based on some other (or no) theoretical orientation (including versions of these tests that were published prior to CHC theory). The second purpose of this article will be to discuss issues that still need to be addressed related to CHC theory and to suggest future directions ...

No abstract

No abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate developmental gender differences in academic achievement areas, with the primary focus on writing, using the child and adolescent portion (ages 6–21 years) of the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement—Second Edition, Brief Form, norming sample (N = 1,574). Path analytic models with gender, parent education, age, age2, and gender‐by‐age moderation as predictors of reading, writing, and math were used to test for gender differences and for the influence of development on these differences. A small but consistent advantage was identified for females in reading. No gender differences were detected in math. The most important results of the present study pertain to a gender gap in writing in favor of females that increased as a function of age. Male students are at greater risk for writing failure than are females.