Working-memory capacity explains reasoning ability—and a little bit more

Süß, Heinz-Martin; Oberauer, Klaus; Wittmann, Werner W.; Wilhelm, Oliver; Schulze, Reiner

doi:10.1016/s0160-2896(01)00100-3

Cited by 533 publications

(331 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

291

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Or is this result only the result of psychometric weaknesses of the specific test, the time limited test administration, and/or a sample effect? The model fits presented in this paper are weaker than those reported earlier for similar models (Süß et al, 2002;Süß & Beauducel, 2005). This could be the result of the more heterogeneous sample, particularly the broader education and age range.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 96%

“…The Berlin Intelligence Structure Model has been successfully validated in numerous studies using different task sets, different methods, and with different populations (apprentices, high-school students, undergraduates, young adults, intellectually gifted people) (Beauducel & Kersting, 2002;Bucik & Neubauer, 1996;Jäger et al, 1997;Jäger, et al, 2006;Pfister & Beauducel, 1993;Süß & Beauducel, 2005;Süß, Oberauer, Wittmann, Wilhelm, & Schulze, 2002).…”

Section: The Scope Of Validity Of the Bismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Modeling the construct validity of the Berlin Intelligence Structure Model

Süß

Beauducel

2015

Estud. psicol. (Campinas)

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Estudos de Psicologia I Campinas I 32(1) I 13-25 I janeiro -março 2015 AbstractThe Berlin Intelligence Structure Model is a hierarchical and faceted model which is originally based on an almost representative sample of tasks found in the literature. Therefore, the Berlin Intelligence Structure Model is an integrative model with a high degree of generality. The present paper investigates the construct validity of this model by using different confirmatory factor analysis models. The results show that the model assumptions are supported only in part by the data. Moreover, it is demonstrated that there are different possibilities to incorporate the Berlin Intelligence Structure Model assumptions into confirmatory factor analysis models. The results are discussed with regard to the validity of the Berlin Intelligence Structure Model test, and the validity of the model. The Berlin Intelligence Structure Model (BIS) of Jäger (1982; is an integrative, hierarchical and faceted model of intelligence. At the most general level, general intelligence ("g") is assumed Keywords

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 96%

Section: The Scope Of Validity Of the Bismentioning

confidence: 99%

Modeling the construct validity of the Berlin Intelligence Structure Model

Süß

Beauducel

2015

Estud. psicol. (Campinas)

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We chose the complex span paradigm, which is a well-established measure of WM capacity (cf. Conway et al, 2005), as well as an excellent predictor for reasoning (e.g., Engle, Tuholski, Laughlin, & Conway, 1999;Süß, Oberauer, Wittmann, Wilhelm, & Schulze, 2002). Moreover, in our recent study mentioned above , we found that training with complex span tasks was more effective than training with other tasks of WM capacity in terms of transfer to untrained WM and reasoning tasks.…”

supporting

confidence: 50%

Does working memory training have to be adaptive?

Bastian

Eschen

2015

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study tested the common assumption that, to be most effective, working memory (WM) training should be adaptive (i.e., task difficulty is adjusted to individual performance). Indirect evidence for this assumption stems from studies comparing adaptive training to a condition in which tasks are practiced on the easiest level of difficulty only [cf. Klingberg (Trends Cogn Sci 14:317-324, 2010)], thereby, however, confounding adaptivity and exposure to varying task difficulty. For a more direct test of this hypothesis, we randomly assigned 130 young adults to one of the three WM training procedures (adaptive, randomized, or self-selected change in training task difficulty) or to an active control group. Despite large performance increases in the trained WM tasks, we observed neither transfer to untrained structurally dissimilar WM tasks nor far transfer to reasoning. Surprisingly, neither training nor transfer effects were modulated by training procedure, indicating that exposure to varying levels of task difficulty is sufficient for inducing training gains. Can fluid cognitive abilities such as working memory (WM) and reasoning be improved through computer-based WM training? This is a highly controversial question, with prior empirical studies (for reviews, see Morrison & Chein, 2011;von Bastian & Oberauer, 2014) and meta-analyses (Au et al., in press;Karbach & Verhaeghen, 2014;Lampit, Hallock, & Valenzuela, 2014;Melby-Lervåg & Hulme, 2013) providing contradictory findings. Although multiple previous studies revealed promising effects (e.g., Jaeggi, Buschkuehl, Jonides, & Perrig, 2008;Jaeggi, Buschkuehl, Shah, & Jonides, 2014;Jaeggi et al., 2010; Klingberg et al., 2005;Schweizer, Hampshire, & Dalgleish, 2011;Stepankova et al., 2014;, a growing number of other WM training interventions failed to induce such broad transfer (e.g., Chein & Morrison, 2010;Chooi & Thompson, 2012;Colom et al., 2013;Harrison et al., 2013;Redick et al., 2013;Salminen, Strobach, & Schubert, 2012; Sprenger et al., 2013;Thompson et al., 2013;von Bastian, Langer, Jäncke, & Oberauer, 2013). The factors contributing to the success of WM training interventions in terms of improving WM and reasoning are still unclear (see von Bastian & Oberauer, 2014), and large variations (and, in some occasions, serious flaws) in the methodologies and training regimens used complicate comparisons across studies (cf. Shipstead, Redick, & Engle, 2012), and thus the identification of such factors. Therefore, before we can conclude whether and under which circumstances WM training can induce transfer, carefully controlled, systematic investigations of factors potentially contributing to training effectiveness are needed.In theory, cognitive plasticity occurs if there is a "prolonged mismatch between functional organismic supplies and environmental demands" (Lövden, Bäckman, Lindenberger, Schaefer, & Schmiedek, 2010, p. 659). According to Lövden and colleagues (2010), this mismatch occurs if the environmental demands exceed the routine demands the cognitiv...

show abstract

“…In research demonstrating a strong relation between WM capacity and fluid intelligence/reasoning (Kane et al, 2004;Kyllonen & Christal, 1990;Süß, Oberauer, Wittmann, Wilhelm, & Schulze, 2002), it has proven fruitful to combine experimentally informed task design with an individual differences perspective. Measures of individual differences, however, presume reliable and valid indicators of a construct, which leads to the question of what defines a good WM task (Conway et al, 2005;Oberauer, 2005).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Complex span versus updating tasks of working memory: The gap is not that deep.

Schmiedek¹,

Hildebrandt²,

Lövdén³

et al. 2009

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

Self Cite

207

184

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How to best measure working memory capacity is an issue of ongoing debate. Besides established complex span tasks, which combine short-term memory demands with generally unrelated secondary tasks, there exists a set of paradigms characterized by continuous and simultaneous updating of several items in working memory, such as the n-back, memory updating, or alpha span tasks. With a latent variable analysis (N ϭ 96) based on content-heterogeneous operationalizations of both task families, the authors found a latent correlation between a complex span factor and an updating factor that was not statistically different from unity (r ϭ .96). Moreover, both factors predicted fluid intelligence (reasoning) equally well. The authors conclude that updating tasks measure working memory equally well as complex span tasks. Processes involved in building, maintaining, and updating arbitrary bindings may constitute the common working memory ability underlying performance on reasoning, complex span, and updating tasks.

show abstract

Working-memory capacity explains reasoning ability—and a little bit more

Cited by 533 publications

References 25 publications

Modeling the construct validity of the Berlin Intelligence Structure Model

Modeling the construct validity of the Berlin Intelligence Structure Model

Does working memory training have to be adaptive?

Complex span versus updating tasks of working memory: The gap is not that deep.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About