The General (g), Broad, and Narrow CHC Stratum Characteristics of the WJ III and WISC-III Tests: A Confirmatory Cross-Battery Investigation.

Abstract

Horn Horn CHC Narrow Abilities'All sample demographic variables reported for the current sample are based on the U.S. Census category variables employed in the standardization of the WJ III 2The final WJ III grade three through five norm sample was weighted to provide a close approximation to the time period relevant U.S. Census gender figures (see . This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Intelligent Diagnosing of Intellectual Disabilities in Offenders: Food for Thought

“…First, it provides a common nomenclature for describing cognitive abilities. Second, it serves as a comprehensive and empirically based framework to identify and understand cognitive abilities (Phelps, McGrew, Knopik, & Ford, 2005), as well as a platform for hypothesis testing in research and in practice (McGrew, 2009). Hence, it bridges the theory-to-practice gap (McGrew, 2009).…”

“…14-18), and the CHC-based Cross Battery (CB) assessment procedures , a psychometrically defensible method of evaluating data within and across intelligence and achievement batteries. Because none of the current standard batteries is able to encapsulate the entire theory (Newton & McGrew, 2010), the CB procedure was constructed based on theory-driven joint factor analyses and expert consensus studies (Alfonso et al, 2005), and is still generating empirical support (Phelps et al, 2005). The CB procedure helps practitioners to organize assessment, to generate and test hypotheses regarding an individual's functioning, and it allows them to draw reliable and valid conclusions from cross-battery data in a systematic manner (Alfonso et al, 2005).…”

“…Although the latest studies validating the factor structure of the CHC model are promising (e.g. Phelps et al, 2005), further research focusing on the validity of broad and narrow cognitive ability constructs is still scarce and is needed for more refinement and development of the model. Looking at the complex structure one might, however, wonder whether we are over-factoring not only the current intelligence instruments (Frazier & Youngstrom, 2007), but also the intelligence construct.…”

Externalizing Behavior Problems

“…In a cross-battery confirmatory factor analysis of the WJ-III and WISC-III, the Digit Span subtest of the WISC-III and the numbers reversed subtest of the WJ-III (a subtest similar to Digit Span Backwards) appeared to be strong indicators of working memory (Phelps, McGrew, Knopik, & Ford, 2005). Also, the median internal consistency coefficient for the Digit Span Subtest of the WISC-III is .79 (Kamphaus, 2001).…”

Intelligence, age and schooling: data from the Battery of Reasoning Tests (BRT-5)

“…Despite the differences between the models of Carroll and Cattell and Horn, the gathering of these three authors as technical advisers for the Woodcock WJ-R test (McGrew, 2009) led to the creation of an "umbrella" terminology integrating these theories, which has since been known as the Cattell-HornCarroll (CHC) theory of cognitive abilities (Carroll, 1997;Flanagan, Genshaft, & Harrison, 1997;Horn & Noll, 1997;McGrew & Flanagan, 1998). Some studies have referred to the CHC model as the most consensual, complete and modern description of intelligence (Flanagan & Ortiz, 2001;McGrew, 1999;McGrew & Flanagan, 1998;Phelps, McGrew, Knopik, & Ford, 2005;Primi & Almeida, 2002;Stankov, 2000aStankov, , 2000b. Such contributions lead the research in the area especially that aimed at understanding the factors measured by intelligence tests.…”