McGrew and Wendling examined and synthesized studies
that looked into the relations between CHC abilities and reading and math
achievement. Their research was
published in this paper, available for free download:
CATTELL–HORN–CARROLL COGNITIVE-ACHIEVEMENT RELATIONS: WHAT WE
HAVE LEARNED FROM THE PAST 20 YEARS OF RESEARCH. KEVIN S. McGREW AND BARBARA J. WENDLING. Psychology in the Schools, Vol.
47(7), 2010
The research included
19 studies examining five or more CHC abilities in children. Because most studies used the Woodcock
Johnson (WJ) test, the findings presented here describe mainly the relations
between cognitive abilities as measured in the WJ test and achievement as
measured in the WJ test. Most studies
were done on the same sample – the national norm sample of the WJ test.
Basic reading skills were measured in this research by single word and non-word decoding,
word recognition and linking sounds with symbols. Reading comprehension was measured by multiple choice and open
ended questions about texts and cloze procedures. Basic math skills were measured by calculation tests ranging
from basic math calculations to complex algorithmic computations. Math reasoning was measured by word problems, number series,
and application of math operations and concepts.
The main findings, in my view (but not all findings) are presented here in an easy to understand visual way.
The results show that
sometimes broad abilities are the best predictors, but sometimes narrow
abilities are better predictors of achievement.
The results also show that if there is no specific need for an IQ score or a g score, it's not
necessary to test the child with the whole intelligence test battery. It's better to choose the broad and narrow
abilities to be tested according to the referral question and to the child's
age.
The authors wonder
why visual processing is not
a predictor of math or reading achievement.
As for math, past research shows that skills like length
estimation are core deficits in math learning disability. As for reading, the ability to quickly map
graphemes to phonemes is known as important for reading. One possibility is that visual skills related
to reading or math are not measured in intelligence tests that measure visual
processing. An argument the goes the
other way around would be, that maybe the math tests used in this research don't
measure math areas that draw heavily on visual processing (geometry or
trigonometry, for example).
I have other
questions regarding the fluid
ability. The authors write, that
fluid ability tests that predict math achievement best, measure fluid ability
through…reasoning with numbers and numerical relations (for example number
series or number matrices tests).
Also, fluid ability
(as measured by the WJ tests) was
not a predictor of reading comprehension (as measured by the WJ
tests). This is odd. How is it possible, that the ability for
abstract reasoning, the ability to draw conclusions and understand consequences
is not related to reading comprehension?
One possible explanation is that fluid ability is measured in the WJ
test through non-linguistic tests that use visual or numerical stimuli. It's possible that measuring fluid ability by
tests that use verbal stimuli and require verbal abstraction would have helped
to find the missing, obvious link between this ability and reading
comprehension.
No comments:
Post a Comment