Do Cognitive–Achievement Relations Vary by General Ability Level?

Abstract

Cognitive–achievement relations research has been instrumental in understanding the development of academic skills and learning difficulties. Most cognitive–achievement relations research has been conducted with large samples and represent average relations across the ability spectrum. A notable gap in the literature is whether these relations vary by cognitive ability levels (IQ). This study examined cognitive–achievement relations across different general ability levels (Low, Average, and High) to fill this gap. Based on Spearman’s Law of Diminishing Returns, it would be expected that general intelligence would be a stronger predictor of academic skills at lower levels of IQ, and more specific abilities would be stronger predictors of academic skills at higher levels of IQ. To test this, multi-group path analysis and structural equation modeling were used to examine whether integrated models of cognitive–reading relations are differentiated by IQ levels in the Woodcock–Johnson III and Woodcock–Johnson IV standardization samples. Global and broad cognitive abilities were used as predictors of basic reading skills and reading comprehension for elementary and secondary school students. The magnitude of prediction differed across ability groups in some cases, but not all. Importantly, the variance explained in basic reading skills and reading comprehension tended to be larger for the Low group compared to the Average and High groups. When variance accounted for by general intelligence was removed from the broad abilities, the effects of the broad abilities were similar across ability groups, but the indirect effects of g were higher for the Low group. Additionally, g had stronger relative effects on reading in the Low group, and broad abilities had stronger relative effects on reading in the Average and High groups. The implications and limitations of this study are discussed.