Are Cattell—Horn—Carroll Broad Ability Composite Scores Exchangeable Across Batteries?

References

• Alfonso, V. C., Flanagan, D. P., & Radwan, S. (2005). The impact of the Cattell—Horn—Carroll theory on test development and interpretation of cognitive and academic abilities. In D. P. Flanagan & P. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment (2nd ed., pp., 185—202). New York: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
   Google Scholar
• Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Bergman, L. R., & Magnusson, D. (1997). A person-oriented approach in research on developmental psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 9, 291–319.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bracken, B. A. (1986). Incidence of basic concepts in the directions of five commonly used American tests of intelligence. School Psychology International, 7, 1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Bracken, B. A. (1987). Limitations of preschool instruments and standards for minimal levels of technical adequacy. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 5, 313–326.
   Google Scholar
• Bracken, B. A. (1988). Ten psychometric reasons why similar tests produce dissimilar results. Journal of School Psychology, 26, 155–166.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bracken, B. A. (2000). Maximizing construct relevant assessment: The optimal preschool testing situation. In B. A. Bracken (Ed.), The psychoeducational assessment of preschool children (3rd ed., pp. 33–44). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• Brennan, R. L. (2001). Generalizability theory. New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Cairns, R. B., Bergman, L. R., & Kagan, J. (Eds.). (1998). Methods and models for studying the individual. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carroll, J. B. (1976). Psychometric tests as cognitive tasks: A new structure of intellect. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 27–56). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor analytic studies. New York: Cambridge University.
   Google Scholar
• Carroll, J. B. (2003). The higher stratum structure of cognitive abilities: Current evidence supports g and about ten broad factors. In H. Nyborg (Ed.), The scientific study of general intelligence: Tribute to Arthur R. Jensen (pp. 5–21). New York: Pergamon.
   Google Scholar
• Charter, R. A., & Feldt, L. S. (2000). The relationship between two methods of evaluating an examinee's difference scores. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 18, 125–142.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cicchetti, D. V. (1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment, 6, 284–290.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Cronbach, L. J., Gleser, G. C., Nanda, H., & Rajaratnam, N. (1972). The dependability of behavioral measurements. New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Dean, R. S., & Woodcock, R. W. (1999). The WJ—R and Bateria—R in neuropsychological assessment (Research Report No. 3). Itasca, IL: Riverside.
   Google Scholar
• Elliott, C. D. (1990). Differential Ability Scales. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Evans, J. J., Floyd, R. G., McGrew, K. S., & Leforgee, M. H. (2002). The relations between measures of Cattell—Horn—Carroll (CHC) cognitive abilities and reading achievement during childhood and adolescence. School Psychology Review, 31, 246–262.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flanagan, D. P., & Kaufman, A. S. (2004). Essentials of WISC-IV assessment. New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Flanagan, D. P., & McGrew, K. S. (1997). A cross-battery approach to assessing and interpreting cognitive abilities: Narrowing the gap between practice and cognitive science. In D. P. Flanagan, J. L. Genshaft, & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 314–325). New York: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Flanagan, D. P., McGrew, K. S., & Ortiz, S. (2000). The Wechsler Intelligence Scales and Gf-Gc theory: A contemporary approach to interpretation. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• Flanagan, D. P., & Ortiz, S. (2001). Essentials of cross-battery assessment. New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Floyd, R. G. (2005). Information-processing approaches to interpretation of contemporary intellectual assessment instruments. In D. P. Flanagan & P. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment (2nd ed., pp., 203–233). New York: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Floyd, R. G., Bergeron, R., & Alfonso, V. C. (2005). Cognitive ability profiles of children with reading comprehension difficulties. Manuscript sbmitted for publication.
   Google Scholar
• Floyd, R. G., Clark, M. H., & Shadish, W. R. (2005). The exchangeability of general ability composites. Manuscript submitted for publication.
   Google Scholar
• Floyd, R. G., Evans, J. J., & McGrew, K. S. (2003). Relations between measures of Cattell—Horn—Carroll (CHC) abilities and mathematics achievement across the school-age years. Psychology in the Schools, 60, 155–171.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flynn, J. R. (1984). The mean IQ of Americans: Massive gains 1932 to 1978. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 29–51.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glutting, J. J., Watkins, M. W., & Youngstrom, E. A. (2003). Multifactored and cross-battery ability assessments: Are they worth the effort? In C. R. Reynolds & R. W. Kamphaus (Eds.), Handbook of psychological and educational assessment of children: Intelligence, aptitude, and achievement (2nd ed., pp. 343–374). New York: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gulliksen, H. (1987). Theory of mental tests. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Horn, J. L. (1991). Measurement of intellectual capabilities: A review of theory. In K. S. McGrew, J. K. Werder, & R. W. Woodcock, WJ-R technical manual (pp. 197–232). Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Horn, J. L., & Blankson, N. (2005). Foundation for better understanding cognitive abilities. In D. P. Flanagan & P. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment (2nd ed., pp. 41–68). New York: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Westport, CT: Preager.
   Google Scholar
• Jensen, A. R., & Weng, L-J. (1994). What is good g? Intelligence, 18, 231–258.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kamphaus, R. W. (2001). Clinical assessment of child and adolescent intelligence (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• Kamphaus, R. W., Winsor, A. P., Rowe, E. W., & Kim, F. (2005). A history of intelligence test interpretation. In D. P. Flanagan & P. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment (2nd ed., pp. 23–38). New York: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kaufman, A. S. (1994). Intelligent testing with the WISC-III. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (1983). Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
   Google Scholar
• Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (1993). The Kaufman Adolescent and Adult Intelligence Test. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
   Google Scholar
• Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2004a). Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, Second Edition manual. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
   Google Scholar
• Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2004b). Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, Second Edition manual. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
   Google Scholar
• Kyllonen, P. C. (1995). CAM: A theoretical framework for cognitive abilities measurement. In D. Detterman (Ed.), Current topics in human intelligence: Vol. 4, Theories of intelligence (pp. 307–359). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
   Google Scholar
• McDermott, P. A., Fantuzzo, J. W., & Glutting, J. J. (1990). Just say no to subtest analysis: A critique on Wechsler theory and practice. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 8, 289–302.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGrew, K. S. (2005). The Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory of cognitive abilities: Past, present, and future. In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (2nd ed., pp. 136–177). New York: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• McGrew, K. S., & Flanagan, D. P. (1998). The intelligence test desk reference (ITDR): Gf-Gc cross-battery assessment. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• McGrew, K. S., & Woodcock, R. W. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III technical manual. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13–103). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
   Google Scholar
• Meyer, G. J., Finn, S. E., Eyde, L. D., Kay, G. G., Moreland, K. L., Dies, R. R., Eisman, E. J., Kubiszyn, T. W., & Reed, G. M. (2001). Psychological testing and psychological assessment: A review of evidence and issues. American Psychologist, 56, 128–165.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Ortiz, S. (2002). Best practices in nondiscriminatory assessment. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV(pp. 1321–1336). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
   Google Scholar
• Ortiz, S., & Ochoa, S. H. (2005). Advances in cognitive assessment of culturally and linguistically diverse individuals. In D. P. Flanagan & P. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment (2nd ed., pp. 234–250). New York: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Phelps, L., McGrew, K. S., Knopik, S. N., & Ford, L. A. (2005). The general (g), broad, and narrow CHC stratum characteristics of the WJ III and WISC-III tests: A confirmatory cross-battery investigation. School Psychology Quarterly, 20, 66–88.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Proctor, B., Floyd, R. G., & Shaver, R. B. (2005). CHC broad cognitive ability profiles of low math achievers. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 1–12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rizza, M. G., McIntosh, D. E., & McCunn, A. (2001). Profile analysis of the Woodcock—Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities with gifted students. Psychology in the Schools, 38, 447–455.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodgers, J. L. (1999). A critique of the Flynn effect: Massive IQ gains, methodological artifacts, or both? Intelligence, 26, 337–356.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roid, G. H. (2003). Stanford—Binet Intelligence Scale, Fifth Edition. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Saklofske, D. H., & Schwean Kowalchuk, V. L. (1994). Influences on testing and test results. In M. Zeidner & R. Most (Eds.), Psychological testing: An inside view (pp. 89–118). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists.
   Google Scholar
• Salvia, J., & Ysseldyke, J. (2003). Assessment in special and remedial education (8th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
   Google Scholar
• Sanborn, K. J., Truscott, S. D., Phelps, L., & McDougal, J. L. (2003). Does the Flynn effect differ by IQ level in samples classified as learning disabled? Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 21, 145–159.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sattler, J. M. (2001). Assessment of children: Cognitive applications (4th. ed.). San Diego: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Sattler, J. M., & Ryan, J. J. (2001). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–III: Description. In J. M. Sattler, Assessment of children: Cognitive applications (4th. ed., pp. 375–413). San Diego: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Sattler, J. M., & Saklofske, D. H. (2001). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–III: Description. In J. M. Sattler, Assessment of children: Cognitive applications (4th. ed., pp. 220–265). San Diego: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Schrank, F. A., & Woodcock, R. W. (2001). WJ III Compuscore and Profiles Program [Computer software]. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Shavelson, R. J., & Webb, N. M. (1991). Generalizability theory: A primer. Newbury Park, NY: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Spearman, C. (1927). The abilities of man: Their nature and measurement. New York: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Thorndike, R. L. (1987). Stability of factor loadings. Personality and Individual Differences, 8, 585–586.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tusing, M. B., Maricle, D. E., & Ford, L. A. (2003). Assessment with the Woodcock–Johnson III and young children. In F. A. Schrank & D. P. Flanagan (Eds.), WJ III clinical use and interpretation (pp. 244–283). New York: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wechsler, D. (1989). Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence—Revised. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Wechsler, D. (1991). The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—Third Edition. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Wechsler, D. (1997). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—Third Edition. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Wechsler, D. (2003). The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—Fourth Edition. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Woodcock, R. W. (1990). The theoretical foundations of the WJ-R measures of cognitive ability. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 8, 231–258.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woodcock, R. W., & Johnson, M. B. (1989). Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery—Revised. Allen, TX: DLM Teaching Resources.
   Google Scholar
• Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock—Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Zhu, J, & Tulsky, D. S. (2000). Co-norming of the WAISIII and WMS-III: Is there a test-order effect on IQ and memory scores? The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 14, 461–467.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar