Score gains on g-loaded tests: No g

Nijenhuis, Jan te; Vianen, A.E.M. van; Flier, H. van der

doi:10.1016/j.intell.2006.07.006

Cited by 120 publications

(93 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The adaptive character of the training leads to continual engagement of executive processes while only minimally allowing the development of automatic processes and task-specific strategies. As such, it engages g-related processes (5,17). Furthermore, the particular working memory task we used, the ''dual n-back'' task, engages multiple executive processes, including ones required to inhibit irrelevant items, ones required to monitor ongoing performance, ones required to manage two tasks simultaneously, and ones required to update representations in memory.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The reason for this capacity might be that participants with a very high level of n at the end of the training period may have developed very task specific strategies, which obviously boosts n-back performance, but may prevent transfer because these strategies remain too task-specific (5,20). The averaged n-back level in the last session is therefore not critical to predicting a gain in Gf; rather, it seems that working at the capacity limit promotes transfer to Gf.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Gf is critical for a wide variety of cognitive tasks (2), and it is considered one of the most important factors in learning. Moreover, Gf is closely related to professional and educational success (3)(4)(5)(6), especially in complex and demanding environments (7). There is considerable agreement that Gf is robust against influences of education and socialization, and it is commonly seen as having a strong hereditary component (2,8,9).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory

Jaeggi

Buschkuehl

Jonides

et al. 2008

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

1,862

107

1,717

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fluid intelligence (Gf ) refers to the ability to reason and to solve new problems independently of previously acquired knowledge. Gf is critical for a wide variety of cognitive tasks, and it is considered one of the most important factors in learning. Moreover, Gf is closely related to professional and educational success, especially in complex and demanding environments. Although performance on tests of Gf can be improved through direct practice on the tests themselves, there is no evidence that training on any other regimen yields increased Gf in adults. Furthermore, there is a long history of research into cognitive training showing that, although performance on trained tasks can increase dramatically, transfer of this learning to other tasks remains poor. Here, we present evidence for transfer from training on a demanding working memory task to measures of Gf. This transfer results even though the trained task is entirely different from the intelligence test itself. Furthermore, we demonstrate that the extent of gain in intelligence critically depends on the amount of training: the more training, the more improvement in Gf. That is, the training effect is dosage-dependent. Thus, in contrast to many previous studies, we conclude that it is possible to improve Gf without practicing the testing tasks themselves, opening a wide range of applications.cognitive training ͉ transfer ͉ individual differences ͉ executive processes ͉ control processes

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory

Jaeggi

Buschkuehl

Jonides

et al. 2008

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

1,862

107

1,717

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, we conclude that our training games enhanced narrow abilities (stratum I), in particular, the ability to concentrate attention and to avoid careless production of false alarms. Some authors (e.g., te Nijenhuis, Vianen, & van der Flier, 2007) claim that cognitive training does not in fact affect the third stratum but only the lowest level of the hierarchy, consisting of specific abilities that closely resemble the trained skills. In our study, there was not much similarity between training games and criterial tests, so we conclude that our participants improved their narrow cognitive abilities rather than just specific testing skills.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Attention Training in Schoolchildren Improves Attention but Fails to Enhance Fluid Intelligence

Sarzyńska

Żelechowska

Falkiewicz

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fluid intelligence is a critical factor in learning and instruction. It also influences performance at school and in the workplace. There have been many attempts to directly and indirectly improve general fluid intelligence by training its underlying cognitive functions, such as working memory, cognitive control, or attention. The aim of the present study was to determine the extent to which school-age children's scores on intelligence tests could be improved by attention training. After training sessions, which consisted of four computerized cognitive tasks that practiced various aspects of attention, the children's scores on an attention test improved, with fewer false alarms and increased performance speed. This improvement partially persisted over an extended period of time. However, this effect was not associated with higher intelligence test scores. These results suggest that attention is possible to develop through short-term interventions but general intelligence is not. We interpret our findings in terms of the three-stratum theory of human intelligence.

show abstract

“…Moreover, retest effects due to method factors are not restricted to non-Western participants alone and are known to prevail among Westerners (e.g., Blieszner, Willis, & Baltes, 1981;Wing, 1980). Te Nijenhuis, Van Vianen, and Van der Flier (2007) were able to show in a meta-analysis that gains on intelligence test scores after retesting or intervention tend not to be related to general intelligence ('g').…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Variation in Raven's Progressive Matrices scores across time and place

Brouwers

Vijver

Hemert

2009

Learning and Individual Differences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution and sharing with colleagues.Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party websites are prohibited. The paper describes a cross-cultural and historical meta-analysis of Raven's Progressive Matrices. Data were analyzed of 798 samples from 45 countries (N = 244,316), which were published between 1944 and 2003. Country-level indicators of educational permeation (which involves a broad set of interrelated educational input and output factors that are strongly related to economic development), the samples' educational age, and publication year were all independently related to performance on Raven's matrices. Our data suggest that the Flynn effect can be found in high as well as low GNP countries, although its size is moderated by education-related sample and country characteristics and seems to be smaller in developed than in emerging countries.© 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.Raven's Progressive Matrices are a series of multiple-choice items of abstract reasoning. Each item depicts an abstract pattern in a two by two or three by three matrix; all cells contain a figure except for the cell in the right lower corner. Participants are asked to identify the missing segment that would best complement the pattern constituted by the other cells among a set of alternatives that are positioned beneath the matrix. John C. Raven published the first version of the test in 1938 and a revised version in 1956; the three versions of the test (Advanced, Colored, and Standard Progressive Matrices) have since been among the most widely-used intelligence tests. Its intuitively appealing question format and the use of figure stimuli have made the test attractive for cross-cultural comparisons. A meta-analysis of crosscultural intelligence test scores showed that the Raven is the second most used test after the Wechsler Intelligence Scales for Children (Van de Vijver, 1997). This widespread usage makes the test an interesting instrument for a cross-cultural meta-analysis. Moreover, the period in which the Raven has been used in various countries is long enough for enabling a study of the temporal patterning of scores. In the present paper, we report a meta-analysis of Raven performance of children and adults from 45 countries across a time span of 60 years.Cross-cultural comparisons with the Raven tests are often conducted from the premise that the instrument measures crosscultural differences in intelligence that are not confounded by other cultural or national differences, such as education and affluence (Raven, 2000;Rushton, Skuy, & Bons, 2004). 'Culture-free ' (Cattell, 1940), 'culture-fair ' (Cattell & Cattell, 1963), and 'culture-reduced ' (Jensen, 1980) are all terms that have been proposed to describe the Raven or similar t...

show abstract

Score gains on g-loaded tests: No g

Cited by 120 publications

References 55 publications

Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory

Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory

Attention Training in Schoolchildren Improves Attention but Fails to Enhance Fluid Intelligence

Variation in Raven's Progressive Matrices scores across time and place

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About