How neuroscience can inform the study of individual differences in cognitive abilities

McFarland, Dennis J.

doi:10.1515/revneuro-2016-0073

Cited by 18 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 236 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Neuropsychological tests have traditionally been evaluated by methods related to brain function (e.g., Delis et al, 2004). Studies employing methodology that relates to brain function have shown that CHC constructs can be dissociated on the basis of test content (McFarland, 2017b). For example, Volle et al (2008) used both fMRI and lesion mapping to dissociate frontal regions associated with verbal and spatial working memory.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factor-Analytic Evidence for the Complexity of the Delis–Kaplan Executive Function System (D-KEFS)

McFarland

2019

Assessment

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined the complexity of the Delis–Kaplan Executive Function System both in terms of the overall number of factors needed to model the entire battery and the complexity of the number of factors needed to model individual tests. The correlations between tests from the Delis–Kaplan Executive Function System standardization sample were modeled with varying numbers of factors. Simulations of test scores were also done that varied the number of factors used to generate the data and considered criteria for factor retention based on eigenvalues, fit indices, and generalization to new data. The results show seven-factor solutions based on generalization of fixed weights to validation samples provided best estimates. Modification indices produced three seven-factor solutions with comparable model fit but markedly different factor loadings. These results are consistent with process overlap theory, which suggest that complex tests are determined my many distinct executive processes. Given uncertainty of factor-analytic solutions, interpretation of the meaning of test scores should be based on evidence that is external to the test items, such as their sensitivity to clinical conditions. Overly simplistic interpretations of executive test performance based on factor-analytic results are not warranted. This is consistent with the cognitive processing approach of the test authors.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factor-Analytic Evidence for the Complexity of the Delis–Kaplan Executive Function System (D-KEFS)

McFarland

2019

Assessment

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although the results of factor analysis and structural modeling have been used to argue for test validity (Thompson & Daniel, 1996), selection of useful models require constraints by information external to the test batteries being evaluated. These external constraints include the extent to which models allow for accurate prediction of alternative indices of the construct that they are intended to represent (i.e., convergent and discriminant validity, (Campbell and Fisk, 1959)) and the extent to which they are consistent with what is known of brain functioning (McFarland, in press). …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of multidimensional models of WAIS-IV subtest performance

McFarland

2017

The Clinical Neuropsychologist

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective The present study examined the extent to which the covariance structure of the WAIS-IV is best accounted for by models that assume that test performance is the result of group level factors and multiple independent general factors. Method Structural models with one to four general factors were evaluated with either four or five group-level factors. Simulations based on four general factors were run to clarify the adequacy of the estimates of the allocation of covariance by the models. Results Four independent general factors provided better fit than a single general factor for either models with four or five group-level factors. While one of the general factors had much larger loadings than all other factors, simulation results suggested that this might be an artifact of the statistical procedure rather than a reflection of the nature of individual differences in cognitive abilities. Conclusions These results argue against the contention that clinical interpretation of cognitive test batteries should primarily be at the level of general intelligence. It is a fallacy to assume that factor analysis can reveal the structure of human abilities. Test validity should not be based solely on the results of modeling the covariance of test batteries.

show abstract

“…In this latter regard, McFarland [55] published a review article answering the next question: how can neuroscience inform the study of individual differences in cognitive abilities? After discussing several lines of evidence, he arrived at the conclusion that: “ brain networks might best be characterized in terms of the information they process rather than in terms of abstract psychological processes such as working memory and executive control ”.…”

Section: Cognition and Brain Network: Summary Discussion And Inmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enhancing Intelligence: From the Group to the Individual

Colom

Román

2018

J. Intell.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Research aimed at testing whether short-term training programs can enhance intelligence is mainly concentrated on behavior. Expected positive effects are found sometimes, but the evidence is far from conclusive. It is assumed that training must evoke changes in the brain for observing genuine improvements in behavior. However, behavioral and brain data are seldom combined in the same study. Here we present one example of this latter type of research summarizing, discussing, and integrating already published results. The training program was based on the adaptive dual n-back task, and participants completed a comprehensive battery measuring fluid and crystallized ability, along with working memory and attention control, before and after training. They were also submitted to MRI scanning at baseline and post-training. Behavioral results revealed positive effects for visuospatial processing across cognitive domains. Brain imaging data were analyzed by longitudinal voxel-based morphometry, tensor-based morphometry, surface-based morphometry, and structural connectivity. The integration of these multimodal brain results provides clues about those observed in behavior. Our findings, along with previous research and current technological advances, are considered from the perspective that we now live in ideal times for (a) moving from the group to the individual and (b) developing personalized training programs.

show abstract

How neuroscience can inform the study of individual differences in cognitive abilities

Cited by 18 publications

References 236 publications

Factor-Analytic Evidence for the Complexity of the Delis–Kaplan Executive Function System (D-KEFS)

Factor-Analytic Evidence for the Complexity of the Delis–Kaplan Executive Function System (D-KEFS)

Evaluation of multidimensional models of WAIS-IV subtest performance

Enhancing Intelligence: From the Group to the Individual

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About