Introduction to the special issue: Current research in Cattell–Horn–Carroll–based assessment

Abstract

The construct (or concept) of intelligence and the development of tests to assess it have a long and varied history. The first applied intelligence tests consisted of unidimensional static measures of general intelligence (g) (Kaufman, 2009), and the first practical measure of intelligence was published by Alfred Binet and Theodore Simon in 1905. The intent of Binet's test was to differentiate between retarded (intellectually disabled) and normal school children. Early intelligence tests were also used to identify individuals who were gifted and talented (e.g., Hollingsworth, 1926;Terman, 1925). Following the development of early g-based intelligence tests, a lengthy period of time elapsed during which intelligence test development was prominent and psychometrically driven research on the structure of intelligence was extensive. These activities have culminated in today's multidimensional intelligence tests (see Kaufman, 2009, for a historical overview).More specific to the field of school psychology, measures of intelligence have traditionally been considered to be a necessary component (i.e., ability-achievement discrepancy) in the identification of children with specific learning disabilities (SLDs) as prescribed by P.L. 94-142 (Flanagan & Harrison, 2005) and intellectual disabilities (IDs). Recent changes in SLD criteria in the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) have significantly impacted the practice of intelligence testing-to the point that the efficacy of intelligence testing is now being questioned (Dombrowski, Kamphaus, & Reynolds, 2004;Fletcher, Coulter, Reschly, & Vaughn, 2004;Fletcher & Reschly, 2005;Gresham, Restori, & Cook, 2008). In particular, the recent emphasis on Response to Intervention (RTI) as a potential method of determining SLD eligibility has led to serious questions about the usefulness, necessity, empirical support, and efficacy of individualized intelligence or cognitive ability testing within educational settings.It is within this context that the focus of the current special issue was developed. The purpose of this issue is to "take stock" of the usefulness of intelligence theory and testing within the emerging new special education landscape, with a particular focus on the contribution of the contemporary Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory of cognitive abilities. SHIFTING SANDS: THE CHANGING ASSESSMENT LANDSCAPEThe IDEA-driven RTI movement has significantly impacted the field of school psychology. This impact is evident from increased examination in school psychology literature of alternative measurement approaches (e.g., curriculum-based measures and progress-monitoring tools) and/or lack of response to intervention for special education eligibility (Glover & DiPerna, 2007;Reschly, 2005;Shinn, 2007). Some authors (Dehn, 2008;Hale, Kaufman, Naglieri, & Kavale, 2006;Mather & Gregg, 2006;Naglieri & Kaufman, 2008;Witsken, Stoeckel, & D'Amato, 2008) have advocated, however, for the continued use of intelligence tests within the RTI framework to ...

Further insights on the French WISC–IV factor structure through Bayesian structural equation modeling.

“…The CHC taxonomy is actually the best validated model of human cognitive abilities (Ackerman & Lohman, 2006). The current CHC framework is composed of three distinct stratums with a general factor of intelligence at the top, about 16 broad abilities in the middle, and about 100 narrow abilities on the bottom (McGrew, 2009;Newton & McGrew, 2010).…”

Evaluating fluid and crystallized abilities in the performance of an educational process

“…In fact, it has actually been advocated as the framework with the most extensive body of supportive evidence within the educational domain (Newton and McGrew 2010). For instance, one of the fields in which this theory is presupposed to aid in producing positive changes in education lies in the identification of specific learning disabilities (SLD), particularly when addressing questions about the effectiveness of instructional methods (Flanagan et al 2010).…”

Predicting School Achievement Rather than Intelligence: Does Metacognition Matter?

“…Modern intelligence models in the psychometrics area recognize that intelligence is much more than General Intelligence (Carroll, 1993;Floyd et al, 2009;McGrew, 2009;McGrew & Wendling, 2010;Newton & McGrew, 2010), being a broad set of abilities distributed in different strata or levels. So, the first proposal is to incorporate tasks and tests that measure abilities in different cognitive strata to investigate the incremental validity of metacognition rather than intelligence.…”