Confirmatory factor analysis of the Stanford-Binet Fourth Edition: Testing the theory—Test match

Keith, Timothy Z.; Cool, Valerie A.; Novak, Christine G.; White, Lyle J.; Pottebaum, Sheila M.

doi:10.1016/0022-4405(88)90005-2

Cited by 28 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…CFAs of the SB4 were generally supportive of the Gf‐Gc‐ derived structure of the instrument and suggested that the test (in CHC terminology) measured Gc, Gf/Gv, RQ (Quantitative Reasoning), and Gsm, although it was difficult to separate the Gsm factor from other factors at the youngest age level (ages 2–6; Keith, Cool, Novak, White, & Pottebaum, 1988). Hierarchical analyses did not support the test‐derived prediction that the RQ and Verbal factors reflected a higher‐order Gc factor, but instead suggested a residual relation between the Gf/Gv factor and the RQ factor.…”

Section: Validity Of Cognitive Tests From a Chc Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

Cattell–Horn–Carroll abilities and cognitive tests: What we've learned from 20 years of research

Keith

Reynolds

2010

Psychology in the Schools

Self Cite

133

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 ...

show abstract

Section: Validity Of Cognitive Tests From a Chc Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

Cattell–Horn–Carroll abilities and cognitive tests: What we've learned from 20 years of research

Keith

Reynolds

2010

Psychology in the Schools

Self Cite

133

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several confirmatory factor-analytic studies of the SB:FE have been undertaken since its publication (Keith, Cool, Novak, White, & Pottebaum, 1988;Kline, 1989;Ownby & Carmin, 1988). These confirmatory factor analyses have used the intercorrelation matrices provided by R. L. Thorndike et al (1986b) in the Technical Manual for the standardization sample and some version of the LISREL VI computer program (JSreskog & Sorbom, 1986) to test the four-factor theory underlying the SB:FE (i.e., Verbal Reasoning, Quantitative Reasoning, Abstract/Visual Reasoning, Short-Term Memory).…”

Section: Factor-analytic Studies: a Measure Of Construct Validitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A goodness-of-fit index of greater than .90, an adjusted goodness-of-fit index of greater than .80, and a root mean square residual of less than .10 indicate that the data fit a specified model well (Cole, 1987). When using the entire standardization sample and a very strict factor structure that allowed each subtest to load on only one factor, Keith et al (1988) reported an adjusted goodness-of-fit index of .879 and a root mean square residual correlation of .044. When a "relaxed" factor structure was examined, the goodness-of-fit statistics improved to .904 and .037, respectively.…”

Section: Factor-analytic Studies: a Measure Of Construct Validitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Review of validity research on the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale: Fourth Edition.

Laurent

Swerdlik²,

Ryburn³

1992

Psychological Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale: Fourth Edition (SB:FE; Thorndike, Hagen, & Saltier, 1986) represents a significant departure from earlier versions of the scale. In the 5 years since its introduction into the field of intellectual assessment, a number of validity studies have been conducted with the SB:FE. The results from these construct and criterion-related validity studies suggest that the SB:FE provides as valid a measure of general mental ability as existing tests. Support for the 4 factors hypothesized by the authors of the SB:FE is weaker. Research suggests that the SB:FE is a 2-factor test (Verbal, Nonverbal) for ages 2 through 6 years and a 3-factor test (Verbal, Nonverbal, Memory) for ages 7 years and older. Studies also suggest that the SB:FE can distinguish between groups of youngsters with differing intellectual abilities (e.g., mentally handicapped, gifted, neurologically impaired) and that the test correlates highly with scores on achievement tests. On the basis of validity information, recommendations for the use of the SB:FE are made. In its various revisions since 1916 the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale has been a mainstay of assessors for decades. It was the first published intelligence test to provide specific administration and scoring procedures. It was also the first American test to use the concept of the intelligence quotient (IQ). As time has passed, revisions in the Wechsler scales and the advent of new measures of intelligence (e.g.

show abstract

“…Differences in differentiation of concepts has been found in children's performance on the StanfordBinet Intelligence Scale (SB-4: Thorndike, Hagen, & Sattler, 1986), which is hypothesized to be comprised of a general factor and four domain specific factors (verbal reasoning, quantitative reasoning, abstract/ visual reasoning and short-term memory). Keith, Cool, Novak, White, and Pottebaumm (1988) found that the four-factor model provided an acceptable fit to the data for adolescents and adults, but a simpler two-factor model was a better fit to the data of children two-to sixyears-old. Authors (1992) replicated this finding with three-year-olds.…”

Section: Domains Itemsmentioning

confidence: 92%

Examining factor structures on the Test of Early Mathematics Ability — 3: A longitudinal approach

Ryoo

Molfese

Brown

et al. 2015

Learning and Individual Differences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Confirmatory factor analysis of the Stanford-Binet Fourth Edition: Testing the theory—Test match

Cited by 28 publications

References 13 publications

Cattell–Horn–Carroll abilities and cognitive tests: What we've learned from 20 years of research

Cattell–Horn–Carroll abilities and cognitive tests: What we've learned from 20 years of research

Review of validity research on the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale: Fourth Edition.

Examining factor structures on the Test of Early Mathematics Ability — 3: A longitudinal approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About