It's time for debate in the assessment of intelligence! A processing speed example

In the psychotherapy field there are different theoretical approaches (for instance, different dynamic theories, CBT theories, family theories).  Each of these approaches leads to a different view of the client and his difficulties, a view that leads to a different line of intervention.  These approaches are both at an external debate with each other and at an internal dispute (in each of these fields there are subtheories that are arguing with each other).   This debate enriches the development of each of these approaches, since it forces them to clarify their positions. 

What about the diagnostic field?

Where are the different approaches, the different views of the child? The debates?

In the field of learning disabilities there certainly is a debate, as I've written about extensively here.

In the broad field of assessment, and especially in the intelligence field, there are different schools as well.  It's important that we know them because they enrich our view of the child and open new and diverse ways for intervention.  Of the several existing approaches I will mention three:  The psychometric approach (CHC is one of the psychometric theories), the cognitive approach (PASS theory, that is the basis for the KABC test is one of the cognitive theories) and the social-cultural (my term) approach (the Triarchic theory by Sternberg and the Dual theory by Kaufman (here) are representative of this approach).

Here is an example, with processing speed, of the advantage that we gain by having two different theoretical viewpoints.   

Processing speed as defined in CHC theory is the speed and fluency with which a person can perform a task in which the rate of performance is under his control, and that requires attentional resources.  The word "automatic" is the key word for processing speed, because processing speed enables us to reach an automatic and fluent performance of newly learned tasks.  When we learn to play a new musical piece, for example, our performance in the first attempts will be slow and laborious, but with practice performance will become more and more fluent and automatic.  Then we will have free attentional resources to devote to musical expression.  But if we are unlucky to have a slow processing speed, we may need much more practice to reach fluency and automaticity, or we may never reach them, and never have enough free attentional resources to express the musicality of the piece.

Processing speed affects reading and writing in the same way.  A child whose processing speed is slow will find it difficult if not impossible to read fluently and automatically, and will have few free attentional resources for reading comprehension.  A child whose processing speed is slow will find it  difficult  if not impossible to write fluently and automatically, and will have few free attentional resources for expressing his ideas in writing the way he wants them expressed.  Processing speed may affect social functioning as well:  a child whose processing speed is slow will have difficulty playing games that require fluent performance, like jumping rope or handclapping games.  A child whose processing speed is slow may have difficulty participating in conversation, because while he processes what has been said and prepares his contribution, the conversation flows on…

Research on the relation between processing speed and attention tells us that the inattention component affects processing sped.  Thus when we assess a child whose processing speed is slow, it will be a good idea to see if he has attention problems.  Such a child will need to practice new tasks more for them to become automatic.  If the child has difficulties in reading fluency that are caused by processing speed, we may recommend re-reading the same text over and over, each time faster, in order to improve automaticity.

All this is from a CHC point of view.

But we can also look at low processing speed from the point of view of Woodcock's cognitive model (a bit more about this model here).

(Click on the figure to enlarge).

The model consists of a few interacting systems that are used for information processing and the performance of different cognitive tasks.  A quick glance at the figure above reveals us that processing speed belongs, along with short term memory, to the cognitive efficiency system.  This system forms a "bottleneck" for information processing.  We see that it is positioned between input and output ("cognitive academic performance") and we can't do without it.  This model offers us another way to deal with slow processing speed:  strengthening short term memory.

The best analogy I can think of in this context is…the Iranian nuclear program.  Suppose we need 3 centrifuges that spin at a certain speed to make an atom bomb. What can we do if we are unlucky to have especially slow centrifuges, that are spinning at half the speed of average centrifuges?  We can add  three more centrifuges!  If the number of centrifuges represents working memory capacity, we can overcome low processing speed by strengthening short term memory.  There is research that claims this can be done.  The n – back task (of which I've written here) is one such means.

I'm not sure that this analogy is right concerning centrifuges…but for our business it works.

So, looking at low processing speed from the point of view of cognitive theory opened intervention opportunities that were not available to us when we looked at processing speed from the psychometric point of view.  This exemplifies the advantage of being familiar with different theoretical approaches in the assessment field at large and in the intelligence field in particular.