Taub, G. E., & McGrew, K. S. (2014). The Woodcock–Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abilities III’s Cognitive Performance Model Empirical Support for Intermediate Factors Within CHC Theory. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 32(3), 187-201. http://www.iapsych.com/articles/taub2013.pdf
CPM – cognitive
performance model was developed by Richard
Woodcock, one of the developers of the Woodcock Johnson test in 1997. This cognitive model assumes that
intelligence is composed of three systems:
The thinking system (or thinking
ability), which accounts for performance in tasks that require problem solving,
thinking and complex executive functions.
The quality of a person's learning depends on
his thinking ability. The thinking ability
includes the ability to abstract ideas, to conceptualize and to solve new
problems, to process visual and auditory stimuli and to learn and to retrieve
information from long term memory (in CHC terms, fluid ability, visual
processing, auditory processing and long term storage and retrieval). Limitations in one of these components affect
the whole system, limit new learning and may require a change in instructions.
The cognitive efficiency system, which allows
for optimal use of the mental resources.
This is the ability to perform a task quickly and with attentional
focus, and the ability to reach automatic performance. This system reflects the relation between
quality of performance and effort. The
cognitive efficiency system includes the ability to hold a few pieces of
information in awareness and to perform manipulations on them and the ability
to process information quickly (in CHC terms, short term memory and
visuospatial ability). Limitations in one
of the component of the cognitive efficiency system affect the whole system and
require adaptations in instruction methods and in testing.
Funds of acquired
knowledge,
which include a person's crystallized
knowledge, oral language, math skills,
reading and writing skills. The quality
of learning and performance are dependent on the relevant knowledge a person
has. Once a piece of information is
learned, it can become a basis for new learning. If a piece of information was not learned, it
can become an impede future learning.
The funds of acquired knowledge are mutable: instruction strategies and opportunities for
enrichment can affect a person's level of performance in this system.
A child's functioning in every task is a
result of the combined action of the three systems and facilitating/inhibiting
factors:
Facilitators/inhibitors affect performance for better or for
worse. Sometimes they are internal
(health, emotional state, motivation), sometimes they are external (the
presence of visual or auditory distractions, instruction method, the features
of a specific tests the child takes).
Significant health issues that may interfere with school attendance may
cause loss of learning opportunities.
Low motivation for learning or low interest in the contents learned may
affect the extent of effort a person makes.
Cognitive styles or temperament, like impulsivity, may negatively affect
the quality of a person's work. Other
factors, like emotional stability, organizing ability and concentration
ability, may affect learning for better or for worse.
The CPM model was developed theoretically,
not on the basis of empirical findings.
Despite the potential of this model, there is still little empirical
research testing it. One of the ways to
conceptualize the model is through considering the CPM systems as intermediate
abilities between g and the broad CHC abilities. Keith (2005) tested this
using 22 tests from the Woodcock–Johnson test battery (WJ III). He included
Cognitive Efficiency and Thinking Ability as intermediate factors within the
CHC model. The Verbal Ability factor was not included in this model because the
CPM’s Verbal Ability factor and the second-order broad CHC factor, Crystallized
Intelligence, are indistinguishable. Keith found the categorization of Cognitive
Efficiency and Thinking Ability as intermediate factors within the CHC
theoretical model resulted in an improvement in the model’s fit, when compared
with the CHC model without intermediate CPM factors. Keith further noted that within this model,
the Thinking Ability factor and g were indistinguishable, so he removed
the Thinking Ability factor. In his simpler model, processing speed and
short-term memory loaded on the intermediate Cognitive Efficiency factor (both
the Verbal Ability and Thinking Ability factors were excluded from the
analysis). Keith found that this parsimonious one-factor CPM model provided the
best fit to the data.
Taub and McGrew (details and link above)
also tested the CPM model using the WJ3COG standardization sample in the age
range of 9-19. Like Keith, they measured
every broad CHC ability with three tests.
Thus they included the oral language test from the WJ3ACH as a measure
of comprehension knowledge. Taub and
McGrew tested six versions of the CPM (and of the structure of intelligence):
Model 1: the traditional
CHC-based measurement model:
click on image to enlarge
Model 2 (pictured below) is the traditional CPM model, which
includes two Cognitive Performance factors as intermediate factors lying
between the second- and third-order factors within the traditional CHC-based
measurement model. The Verbal Ability factor
was eliminated from Figure 2 because it is an intermediate latent variable with
only one indicator, Crystallized Intelligence (Gc). Thus, the variance
accounted for by Verbal Ability in Model 2 is isomorphic with second-order
broad CHC factor, Gc.
Model 3 (pictured below). This
model is a replication of Keith’s one-factor CPM wherein the Thinking Ability
and Verbal Ability factors are subsumed by the third-order general ability
factor.
Model 4 ( pictured below) is similar to Model 2 with two
differences. First, Model 4 includes the CPM factor, Verbal Ability. To provide
adequate construct representation of Verbal Ability in Model 4, a second
indicator was added, Auditory Processing (Ga). In this model, the variance
accounted for by the broad CHC factor Ga was moved from the CPM Thinking
Ability factor to the CPM Verbal Ability factor. An
inspection of the correlations between the WJ III tests measuring Ga abilities
with Verbal and Thinking abilities revealed stronger relations with the former.
Model 5 (not pictured) is a hybrid model. In this model, Ga shares
variance with Thinking and Verbal ability. Thus, Model 5 incorporates the
traditional placement of Ga as a component of Thinking Ability (Figure 2) and a
component of Verbal ability as presented in Figure 4.
Model 6 (pictured below) is similar to Model 4; however, in
Model 6 the intermediate CPM factor Thinking Ability is considered isomorphic
with the third-order g factor.
The model that provided the best fit to the data was
model 6.
The replication and finding of empirical support
for the existence of intermediate factors within the CHC model suggests that
researchers may need to account for the existence of intermediate factors
within the CHC framework. It is worth
noting, that all models provided an improved fit over Model 1, the traditional
CHC based theoretical measurement model. This indicates that the inclusion of
intermediate factors within a traditional CHC theoretical model provides an
improvement in overall model fit.
Does
it mean that the CHC model should be changed?
We must remember that these are two studies done on a single
intelligence test battery. More evidence
is needed from other test batteries.
If you are looking for Office Furniture Delhi
ReplyDeleteIf you are looking for Office Interiors Delhi Call Niveeta
ReplyDeleteIf you are looking for Glass Partition
ReplyDelete