The Efficacy for Classroom Stakeholders in Using CHC (Cattell-Horn-Carroll) Theory of Broad
and Narrow Cognitive Abilities to Plan Intervention and Instruction: A Literature Review
Camille Jones
Houston Baptist University
ABSTRACT
This paper reviews research studies that examine ways in which classroom stakeholders might
apply the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) Theory of broad and narrow cognitive abilities to plan
intervention and/or instruction for students in pre-referral school settings. Rather than limit g or
intelligence to a single construct or quotient, CHC Theory draws on diagnostic instruments and
factor analytic data sets to structurally identify nine (9) or more broad human cognitive abilities
and more than 70 narrow abilities. Since few practical references linking CHC Theory to
classroom instruction in ways beneficial to classroom stakeholders have been encountered, this
literature search aimed to locate, summarize and analyze research studies linking CHC constructs
to classroom intervention and/or instructionmaking CHC Theory accessible to teachers and
other classroom stakeholders. The search yielded 9 studies directly or indirectly linking
instruction to 7 broad cognitive abilities: 1) long-term retrieval--G(lr), 2) fluid intelligence-G(f), 3) crystallized intelligence--G(c), 4) short-term memory G(sm), 5) processing speed--G(s),
6) quantitative reasoning--G(q) and 7) language-based abilities (reading and writing--G(rw).
Findings suggest that most classroom stakeholders could benefit from scaffolded exposure to
CHCtype cognitive models that neurologically illustrate how consistently implementing
evidenced-based instructional strategies (like response-to-intervention (RTI)) might either help
prevent or intervene against learning challenges and thus benefit academic outcomes for both
general education and exceptional learners.
Keywords: CHC, broad and narrow cognitive abilities, instructional strategies, pre-referral
Introduction
Background
In 2004, a cohort of research psychologistsworking with the data sets of pioneer
research psychologists Raymond Cattell, John Horn and John Carrollpublished a model of
cognitive functioning now known as the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) Theory of human cognitive
abilities (McGrew, 1997). Spearmans early work on intelligence and psychometrics found a
single construct known as g (Spearman, 1925)which led to certain accepted psychometric
constructs, including an intelligence quotient derived as a scaled score (Spearman, 1925).
Rather than limit intelligence or g to a single construct or score, CHC Theory draws on data sets to
structurally identify by strata nine (9) broad cognitive abilities and more than 70 narrow cognitive
abilities (Flanagan, 2013). Nine (9) broad cognitive abilities are regularly identified with CHC
constructs: 1) fluid reasoning (Gf); 2) crystallized intelligence (Gc); 3) visual processing (Gv); 4)
processing speed (Gs); 5) auditory processing (Ga); 6) short-term memory (Gsm); 7) long-term
retrieval (Glr); 8) Reading and writing (Grw); and 9) quantitative knowledge (Gq) (McGrew,
2010).
The CHC model quantitatively is derived from and based on structural evaluations
performed on more than 450 numerical factor analytic cognitive data sets reanalyzed by
psychologist and psychometrician John Carroll--in order to preliminarily identify a structure of
cognitive abilities (Carroll, 1983).
school achievement, the ecological validity of CHC constructs has not been widely applied to
general education classroom settings and/or to student instruction aside from intervention prior to
student referral for a full and individual evaluation (FIE) (Flanagan, 2007).
Ideas about
applying CHC Theory also rely upon how CHC constructs get represented in current diagnostic
battery tests and subtests like Woodcock-Johnson Cognitive, Achievement and Oral Language,
Fourth Edition (WJ-IV COG, WJ-IV ACH, WJ-IV OL, Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children,
Fifth Edition (WISC-V), and Stanford-Binet, Fifth Edition (SB5) (McGrew & Flanagan, 1998).
these broad cognitive abilities in terms of individual experiences (Mather, 2005). Table 1
summarizes these cognitive abilities and further defines and illustrates each (Mather, 2005).
Response to Intervention (RTI) is, therefore, a preventative, evidenced based practice that
connects with intervention and instruction for all classroom stakeholders.
Instructional Interventions
For this study, evidence-based instructional practices like RTI are: 1) practices informed by
research whose characteristics and consequences of environmental variables are empirically
established and directly inform what practitioners can do to produce a desired outcome (Dunst,
Trivette and Cutspec, 2002). Second, instructional interventions (like RTI) improve academic
learning by assisting students in meeting learning standards and by promoting academic
productivity and achievement (National Center on RTI, 2010). Third, instructional interventions
(like RTI) provide multiple means of representation, expression and engagement (Dunst, Trivette
and Cutspec, 2002). Each of these definitions contributes distinctive meaning when applied
either to broad or narrow human cognitive abilities as used by learners in classroom settings.
Table 1 summarizes and defines CHC Theory Constructs as to broad cognitive abilities.
Table 1
Summary of Studies, Findings and CHC Constructs Discussed (*Excerpt from CHC Construct)
CHC Ability
CHC Defined
Comprehensio
n-Knowledge
(G(c))
Language
comprehension
& general
knowledge
Fluid
Reasoning
(G(f))
Long-Term
Storage &
Retrieval
(G(lr))
Reading/
Writing
(G(rw))
Short-Term
Memory
(G(sm)
Automatically &
fluently perform
relatively easy
elementary
cognitive tasks.
Visual-Spatial
Processing
(G(v))
Perceive,
discriminate &
manipulate
images.
Figure 1 charts general, broad and narrow abilities relevant to research reviewed in this study.
Since prior research found distinctive differences in cognitive ability, CHC theory holds
that relationships amongst cognitive abilities can be derived by classifying these into three
different strata: stratum I, "narrow" abilities; stratum II, "broad abilities"; and stratum III,
consisting of a single factor of "general ability" (or g) (Flanagan, 2005). Psychologist John
Carroll first proposed a three-stratum theory of cognitive ability in 1983 (Carroll, 1983). Figure
2 illustrates CHC three-stratum theory:
synapses and nerve firing rate) that explain differences in human ability (Carroll, 1983).
CHC theory holds particular relevance to licensed school psychologists and to
diagnosticians administering psychoeducational assessment. Five (5) of the 7 major intelligence
tests incorporate CHC theory as their foundation for specifying and operationalizing all cognitive
abilities/processes, e.g. WISC-V, WJ IV, SB5, KTEA-II and DAS-II (McGrew, 1998). Since
all current intellectual test instruments fail to effectively measure all 10 broad stratum abilities,
an alternative method of cognitive assessment and interpretation known as Cross Battery
Assessment was developed (Flanagan, 2008). An important catalyst for research psychologists
recommendations to administer Cross-Battery Assessments stems from recognition of the
inability of current test instruments to operationalize all CHC broad and narrow ability constructs
(Flanagan, 2008).
10
of the neurological reasons why differentiated instruction can be critical at all stages of literacy
and numeracyparticularly as a preventative measure prior to engaging the special education
referral process.
Research Question
Given the potential for applying the CHC cognitive model within classrooms to more
appropriately differentiate instruction and meet needs for all learners, which studies use CHC
categories to examine ways to plan differentiated intervention, instruction and/or enrichment for
pre-referral students?
Purpose
The purpose of this review of the literature is to analyze studies that use CHC categories
to examine ways to plan differentiated intervention, instruction and/or enrichment for pre-referral
students. A discussion of search methods used for reviewing the literature follows, along with
summary, analysis, critique and comparison of the relevant studies.
Methods
A systematic search was undertaken to identify studies that involved the application by
various classroom stakeholders (teachers, students, specialists) of CHC Theory and related
constructs concerning cognitive abilities to plan either intervention or instruction. Identified
studies that met pre-determined inclusion criteria were summarized in terms of participants,
target behaviors, procedures and results.
11
Four (4) library subscription databases were searched: 1) PsycInfo, 2) ERIC, 3) the
Professional Development Collection, and ProQuest, combining certain domain terms with both
truncation and several Boolean operators. The search was limited to English-language, peerreviewed journals.
The initial key word search: CHC Theory AND RTI OR response to
The following keyword search of the same three databases gained 263 results:
CHC Theory OR Patterns of Strength* AND Weakness* AND response to intervention OR
instruction AND cognitive* OR crystallized intelligence OR fluid intelligence AND Pattern
strength* weakness*. While these results were more manageable in number, the next step was to
further delimit my terms.
A third, more refined keyword search of the same three databases ensued: CHC Theory
AND RTI or instruction or intervention or enrichment AND Patterns of strength* weakness*,
resulting in 10 to 11 hits from peer-reviewed sources. I further restricted certain search
parameters within each database--by indicating a preference for peer-reviewed articles rather
than all published work.
Two additional search strategies were used to increase the likelihood that all relevant
studies were identified. An ancestral search was conducted by searching the reference lists of
articles identified in the database search. Second, the final keyword search was conducted for
articles from researchers writing in English as well as in languages other than English (Japanese,
Spanish and French). Two related studies were found (Bland, 2015) (Beaujean, 2014).
12
Five factors informed the inclusion criteria for studies in this literature review: 1) Must be
an original research study (primary source); 2) Must use Cattell-Horn-Carroll Theory (CHC
Theory) of cognitive ability (as opposed to, for example, Sternbergs Triarchic Theory or
Spearmans Theory et al) as a neuropsychological basis for determining and differentiating
interventions; 3) Must consider instructional applications of CHC Theory--in classroom
contexts and/or applied to school-aligned content areas; 4) Must include classroom
stakeholders in pre-referral settings: learners as teachers, professionals and students; may
include students with Individual Educational Plans (IEPs); may include twice exceptional
students and/or non-identified students; and 5) must include instruction as either intervention,
enrichment and/or both.
Results
Studies examining how relating long-term retrieval (Glr) to creativity might inform
instruction
As a broad cognitive ability, long-term retrieval (Glr) is defined as the ability to store,
consolidate, and retrieve information over periods of time measured in minutes, hours, days and
13
years (Schneider, W.J. & McGrew, K. (2012). Figure 3 depicts the narrow abilities associated
with long-term retrieval (Flanagan, 2008).
14
Drawing upon correlational research methods to test for relationship between long-term
retrieval and creativity, researchers administered eight (8) diagnostics to 116 university studyparticipants: four (4) long-term retrieval subtests derived from the Kaufman Assessment Battery
for ChildrenII (Kaufman, 2004), one (1) crystallized intelligence (Gc) (crystallized intelligence
achievement) subtest from the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement II Brief (Kaufman,
2005), and three (3) distinct creativity measures including self-assessments and rated creative
performance in drawing and writing. The KABC-II has 18 subtests of two types: core and
supplementary. Figure 1 sets forth the structure of the Kaufman-Battery long-term retrieval
subtests (Kaufman, 2004). The findings suggested significant relation only between long-term
retrieval and creative drawing (statistically significant relations were found neither between
long-term retrieval and creative writing nor between long-retrieval and self-assessed creativity).
15
KABC-II
Figure 1. Long-term retrieval subtests, adapted from the Kaufman Assessment Battery for
Children, 2nd ed. (KABC-II) (Kaufman, 2004).
Table 1 sets forth the coefficients of correlation between the creativity measures and long
term retrieval and crystallized intelligence (Avitia, 2014).
Table 1
Coefficients of Correlation Between the Creativity Measures and Glr and Gc (Avitia, 2014)
Self-Assessed
Creativity
CAT
Drawings
Poems
CAQ
Visual
Music
G(lr)
G(c)
.09
.00
.37
.25
(.06)
.23
.11
.13
.00
.11
16
.11
-.10
Studies focused on how Grw (reading and writing) abilities inform instruction
Article #2: (Hajovsky, 2014)
The first research study in this section, conducted jointly between psychologists at
The Universities of Kansas, Memphis and Texas, aimed to investigate 1) the influences of human
cognitive abilities (HCA or CHC Theory) on the development of reading decoding (RD as a
narrow ability), 2) how these influences may change across grade levels, and 3) how the
combination of cognitive abilities and reading decoding (RD) results in reading comprehension
(RC) across grade levels (Hajovsky, 2014). Researchers examined structural relations between
the Cattell-Horn-Carroll abilities and reading achievement outcome variables across child and
adolescent development using diagnostic test data sets from normed samples (Hajovsky, 2014).
Participants
Participants were selected from the co-normed sample for the Kaufman Assessment
Battery for Children, Second Edition (Kaufman, 2004) and the Kaufman Test of Educational
Achievement, Second Edition (KTEA-II)--representing a stratified sample of 2117 students from
grades 1-12--who were then further selected through random sampling techniques, and given
alternate test forms (Hajovsky, 2014). One group of 1128 students took KTEA-II FORM B (n=
1128). Another group of 989 student-participants KTEA-II FORM A (n= 989) (Hajovsky,
2014).
.
17
Results
The direct effects of long-term retrieval and short-term memory on reading decoding
were the same across grade groupings. The direct effect of comprehension--knowledge on
reading comprehension was smaller in Grades 1-3 when compared with Grades 4-12. In
18
addition, the path from reading decoding (RD) to reading comprehension (RC) was much larger
in Grades 1-3 compared with Grades 4-12. Nonequivalent model results suggest that the
directionality of influence is from reading decoding (RD) to reading comprehension (RC) and
not vice versa (Hajovsky, 2014).
Findings
Findings supported moderation by grade level for the direct effects of comprehensionknowledge (Gc) and reading decoding (RD) on reading comprehension (Havoksy, 2014). In
Grades 1-6, the direct effect of comprehension-knowledge on reading decoding was smaller than
the direct effect in Grades 7-12 (Hajovsky, 2014). Researchers also found the direct effect of
comprehension--knowledge on reading comprehension to be much smaller in Grades 1-3
compared with Grades 4-12. Alternately, the path from reading decoding (RD) to reading
comprehension (RC) was much larger in Grades 1-3 compared with Grades 4-12 (Hajovsky,
2014). Applying nonequivalent models along with their correlation methods, researchers found
uni-directionality of influence: reading decoding (RD) influenced reading comprehension (RC),
not vice versa. Results support a differentiated view of reading development with increases in
comprehension-knowledge (Gc) and decreases in reading decoding (RD) as a way to explain
individual differences in reading comprehension (RC) over time (Hajovsky, 2014).
19
The second research study in this section aimed to investigate the cognitive abilities that
explain reading comprehension across childhood and early adulthood (Floyd, 2012). Drawing
from the standardization sample of the Woodcock-Johnson III, the researchers conducted
analyses with large, stratified participant samples, representing age groups from early childhood
to early adulthood: ages 5 to 6 (n = 639), ages 7 to 8 (n = 720), ages 9 to 13 ( n = 1,995), ages
14 to 19 (n = 1,615), and ages 20 to 39 (n = 1,409) (Floyd, 2012).
Methods
Research methods included causal-comparative quantitative research techniques (e.g.
explanatory models and analysis of direct and indirect effects on reading comprehension of
various broad and narrow abilities), as well as factor analysis representing general intelligence
(g), Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) broad abilities, and reading decoding skills as part of narrow
abilities (Floyd, 2012).
Results
Results revealed significant direct effects for the narrow ability of reading decoding skills
(RD) and for the broader cognitive ability of crystallized intelligence (G(c)) on reading
comprehension across all age levels (Floyd, 2012). Memory-related abilities, processing speed,
and auditory processing demonstrated indirect effects on reading comprehension through reading
decoding skills (Floyd, 2012). The magnitude of direct and indirect effects varied as a function
of age (Floyd, 2012).
Findings
Findings provided support for integrative models of reading that include both direct and
indirect effects of cognitive abilities on reading comprehension and for consideration of
20
21
This study examined the relationship between different factor models of CHC theory and
the factors relationships with language-based academic achievement (i.e., reading and writing)
(Beaujean, 2014).
Participants
Researchers used a co-norming participant sample of 550 students ages 6 through 16
from both the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children4th Edition (WISC-IV) and the
Wechsler Individual Achievement Test2nd Edition (WIAT-II) (Female (n = 268); (M = 282);
60.72% = C, 18.36%= H; 15.36%= AA, 5.27% =A/NA & Other) (Beaujean, 2014).
Methods
Researchers used a structural equation modelling (SEM) framework to model relations
amongst CHC factors; 2) used multiple indices to fit models with sample data; 3) uses R
statistics programing for analyses, 4) examines the WISC-IV factor structure using higher order
CHC model, and allowed for skew, kurtosis and regression analysis in factor loadings(Beaujean,
2014). To examine the hypotheses as to the relation between different CHC factor models and
language-based achievement, the researchers fit three models--mapping these onto three different
predictor scenarios (Beaujean, 2014). Thereafter, they derived regression coefficients for all
three models and both achievement variables (Beaujean, 2014). To account for missing data for
280 of the 550 participants, researchers also estimated parameters using full information
maximum likelihood, robust estimation and standard errors (Beaujean, 2014).
Findings
22
Researchers found that bifactor and higher order models of the subtests of the Wechsler
Intelligence Scale for Children4th Edition produced a different set of Stratum II factors which
have very different relationships with the language achievement variables of the Wechsler
Individual Achievement Test2nd Edition (Beaujean, 2014).
Researchers found that the factor model used to represent CHC theory makes little
difference when general intelligence is of major interest, but it makes a large difference when the
Stratum II factors become of primary concern, especially when used to predict other variables
(Beaujean, 2014).
23
Findings
Researchers found that fluid abilities (Gf) had a significant impact on the rate of learning,
whereas crystallized abilities (Gc) had a significant impact on the final learning performance
(Blanch, 2015). There was also a significant indirect effect of Gf onto the final learning
performance through Gc. These findings are in accordance with some of the premises posited by
the GfGc intelligence model (Blanch, 2015).
This study aimed to better understand the relations between learning disabilities and
different levels of latent cognitive abilities, including general intelligence (g), broad cognitive
abilities, and specific abilities based on the CattellHornCarroll theory of intelligence (CHC
theory) (Niileksela, 2014). Data from the Differential Ability ScalesSecond Edition (DAS-II)
were used to create a multiple-indicator multiple cause model to examine the latent mean
differences in cognitive abilities between children with and without learning disabilities in
reading (LD reading), math (LD math), and reading and writing(LD reading and writing)
(Niileksela, 2014).
.
Results
Statistically significant differences were found in the g factor between the norm group
and the LD groups (Niileksela, 2014). After controlling for differences in g, the LD reading and
LD reading and writing groups showed relatively lower latent processing speed (Gs), and the LD
math group showed relatively higher latent comprehension-knowledge (G(c)) (Niileksela, 2014).
24
Some differences in some specific cognitive abilities arose, including lower scores in spatial
relations and numerical facility for the LD math group (G(q), and lower scores in visual memory
for the LD reading and writing group (Niileksela, 2014).
Methods
Researchers used quantitative methods, survey and mixed methods (Fiorello, 2009).
As treatment, teachers and psychologists took the CHC Cognitive Abilities Questionnaire
(The CAQ) developed by the researchers to assess the level of importance given by respondents
to CHC abilities that have been shown to correlate with academic learning (Fiorello, 2009).
Several tryouts or pilots of questionnaires were completed prior to the final administration
25
(Fiorello, 2009). Respondents were also asked to complete the Broad Abilities Descriptive
Questionnaire (BADQ) after completing CAQ (Fiorello, 2009). Respondents were to use BADQ
to rate the importance of CHC Broad abilities on the same scale as CAQ and these ratings were
correlated with respondent ratings on CAQ to provide evidence of construct validity (Fiorello,
2009).
26
Findings
Amongst practitioners, school psychologists rated CHC short-term memory (Gsm) and
quantitative abilities (Gq) higher than teachers although both groups agreed that crystallized
27
intelligence, fluid reasoning and quantitative abilities are important to classroom success
(Fiorello, 2009).
Purpose:
Specifically, this study had a four-fold purpose: (1) to determine to what extent
educational diagnosticians possess knowledge of Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory of cognitive
ability and its relationship to academic learning, (2) to determine to what extent educational
diagnosticians recommend possible evidence-based instructional interventions based on CHC
theory, (3) to determine to what extent educational diagnosticians recommend accommodations
based on CHC theory, and (4) to determine educational diagnosticians' perceptions regarding
their training and/or preparation programs and knowledge on how to recommend possible
instructional interventions and accommodations based on the relationship between cognitive
ability and academic learning as presented in Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory (Proctor, 2011).
Methods
28
Participants
Survey-participants were forty-two (42) educational diagnosticians listed on the Texas
Registry of Professional (licensed) Educational Diagnosticians (Proctor, 2011). Likert scale
instrumentation rated their skills acquired for linking CHC cognitive ability with academic
learning on a 15 point scale (rating from "low to high"). Scales also rated the extent to which
participants recommended instructional interventions and accommodations on a 15 point scale-rating from "never" to "always". Survey responses analyzed through both descriptive statistics
and a cross tabulation X2 test (Proctor, 2011).
In Phase Two, researchers drew upon a more qualitative method by using focus group
research (Proctor, 2011). A focus group functions like a group interview where the researcher is
trying to collect shared understandings form several individuals as well as to get views from
specific people (Gay, 2012). Focus group Metaplan session procedures offered an active method
of data collection during which a given researcher acts as a moderator to the process and guides
participants through a discussion (Gay, 2012).
29
Five educational diagnosticians participated in the focus group (Proctor, 2011). Proctor
(2011) used a semi-structured interview schedule like Metaplan in order to pose questions to the
group and encourage all participants to respond (Gay, 2012). Researchers clarified how
participating educational diagnosticians acquired knowledge of linking and correlating cognitive
ability factors to academic learning and learned of their recommendations for instructional
interventions and accommodations (Proctor, 2011).
Results indicated that most educational diagnosticians reported having knowledge of the
relationship between CHC theory of cognitive ability factors and academic learningan
important competency for diagnosticians writing recommendations (Proctor, 2011). Focus group
members also reported that most of them recommended instructional interventions and
accommodations based on this knowledge (Proctor, 2011).
The results also specified that most educational diagnosticians believe that they receive
quality training programs related to the relationship between cognitive ability and academic
learning as presented in Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) Theory. Nevertheless, they reported a need
for better formal preparation in linking cognitive ability factors to academic learning-presumably
in classroom settings (Proctor, 2011).
Proctor (2010) created a CHC Intervention Linking Tool that appeared prior to the
publication of her study. Figure 7 sets demonstrates its structure:
30
to Intervention Tool ...may be duplicated and utilized in educational settings as a tool to represent
evaluation results. (Proctor and Albright, 2010).
31
Participants
This study reported the results of the first joint confirmatory factor analysis of the WJ-III
COG and SB5 test batteries with an independently collected preschool-aged sample.
Fourteen subtests
from the WJ-III COG and 10 subtests from the SB5 were administered to the participants
(Chang, 2014). . Both tests were individually administered in a randomized counterbalanced
order, with 44.5% of the sample receiving the WJ-III COG first and 55.5% receiving the SB5
first (Chang, 2014). The examiners were all graduate students enrolled in a school psychology
program who had received graduate-level training in cognitive assessment. Test administration
was completed within a 2-week period over three sessions to minimize changes related to
32
development. Each participant was tested under standardized conditions (Chang, 2014). After
administration, computer scoring programs were used to score the protocols for both the WJ-III
COG and SB5 (Chang, 2014).
Methods
Findings
Chang found that certain findings pertaining to cognitive abilities were attributable to
particular developmental influences in preschool children (Chang, 2014). Since investigating the
cognitive ability of young children in relation to the CHC theory is still relatively limited, Chang
33
found replicating this investigation to be warranted to determine whether the findings could be
supported with confidence (Chang, 2014). Future studies should verify whether the cognitive
ability structure of preschool-aged children is indeed displayed as two or three levels (Chang,
2014).
Limitations also arose: young children undergoing cognitive ability testing are likely to
be those referred for early childhood evaluations with suspected developmental delays; it is
imperative and necessary to conduct future research regarding the use of WJ-III COG and SB5
with populations with special needs or clinical samples (Chang, 2014). Second, the selected
sample only included children between ages 4 and 5 (Chang, 2014). Studies using joint
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to understand the underlying construct of the WJ-III COG
and SB5 should be replicated with older children and adolescents to determine whether the
present findings attributed to developmental influences are actually unique to preschool children
(Chang, 2014).
34
Participants
Tests and subtests from a sample of 158 children between 4 and 5 years of age were used
in a series of joint factor analysestested with the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition
(DAS-II)-the Upper Preschool Level and with the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive
Ability-Revised (Tusing, 2004).
Findings
Although a series of models and broad ability cognitive factors were explored by
researchers, the CHC theory of cognitive abilities best supported by the data (Tusing, 2004).
Findings provided evidence for a greater differentiation of young children's cognitive abilities
than were typically interpreted (Tusing, 2004). Findings also revealed that greater
differentiation in preschool cognitive abilities was best detected when examined at the level of
narrow (rather than broad) abilities (Tusing, 2004).
35
Defined
Author
& Study
Comprehensi
onKnowledge
(G(c))
Fluid
Reasoning
(G(f))
Language
comprehension
& general
knowledge
Use deliberate &
controlled
mental
operations to
solve problems
All Studies
Store &
consolidate new
info and fluently
retrieve stored
info
Declarative &
Procedural
Knowledge
related to
literacy
(Avitia,
2014)
Apprehend &
Maintain
awareness of
info useful for
problem solving.
(Niileksela,
2014)
Long-Term
Storage &
Retrieval
(G(lr))
Reading/
Writing
(G(rw))
Short-Term
Memory
(G(sm)
(Blanch,
2015)
(Beaujean,
2014)
Chang,
2014
(Tusing,
2007)
Relevance
of Findings to
Classroom
Instruction
Gc narrow abilities need to be
tied with content area tasks.
Look beyond verbal/nonverbal
dichotomy with PreK for Gc.
Gf controls rate of learning, Gc
controls mastery;
Preschoolers will show greater
differentiated development when
narrow cognitive abilities are
primed. Look beyond
verbal/nonverbal dichotomy
with PreK .CHC is developing.
Use creative drawing
to build retrieval of
tough concepts.
(Floyd,
2012)
(Havofsky,
2014)
Get reading
decoding
strategies
mastered
early.
Unidirectiona
l effects on
RC. Their
gains are
important in
earlier
grades.
Use a pattern of
strengths and
weaknesses to
gauge were LD *
non-LD strengths
are.
VisualSpatial
Processing
(G(v))
Automatically &
fluently perform
relatively easy
elementary
cognitive tasks.
Perceive,
discriminate &
manipulate
images.
(Niileksela,
2014)
(Avitia,
2014)
(Tusing,
2007)
36
Note * Studies that were most topically relevant and current were selected for review.
Discussion
Only one research diagnostician (Proctor, 2011) amidst many research psychologists
(Flanagan and Ortiz, 2013) directly draws upon CHC findings to link CHC broad and narrow
abilities to intervention and instruction. Previously, CHC Theory researchers examined
interventions related to specific learning disabilities (SLD). With statewide urging for proactive
work amongst diagnostician-practitioners, future studies might practically model for teachers
how to link CHC cognitive abilities to pre-referral instruction for all.
37
Recognition of fluid reasoning amongst preschoolers still meets with many certain limitations
(which should form an important basis for future CHC research).
Several limitations should be addressed and/or expanded on in future work. First, the
number of studies critiqued in this literature review was small--compared with the number of
predictors and variables raised by CHC Theory and human cognitive ability.
Although the analyses conducted by the researchers detailed methods and sampling
measures with high reliability and validity, future studies could ideally include more varied
participants, and/or employ more qualitative data collection techniques to deepen participantperspectives. In addition, many different domains and methodologies of cognitive ability linked
to classroom instruction could be studied. This literature review could prompt for greater action
research as wellby more fully including classroom stakeholders interested in examining how
cognitive psychology might affect instruction in specific contextsin ways that complement the
educational research process.
38
References
Avitia, M. J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2014). Beyond g and c: The relationship of rated creativity to
long-term storage and retrieval (Glr). Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and The Arts,
8(3), 293-302.
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor analytic studies. New York:
Cambridge University Press
Dunst, C. J., Trivette, C. M., & Cutspec, P. A. (2002). An evidence-based approach to
documenting the characteristics and consequences of early intervention practices.
Centerscope, Vol. 1, No. 2.
Hajovsky, D. J. (2014). A Multigroup Investigation of Latent Cognitive Abilities and Reading
Achievement Relations. School Psychology Review, 43(4), 385-406..
Jensen, E. (1998). Teaching with the brain in mind. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision
and Curriculum Development.
Flanagan, D. P., & Harrison, P. L. (2005). Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests,
and issues. (2nd Edition). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Flanagan, D. P., Ortiz, S. O., & Alfonso, V. C. (2007). Essentials of cross-battery assessment.
(2nd Edition). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Floyd, R., Meisinger, E., Gregg, N., & Keith, T. (2012). An explanation of reading
comprehension across development using models from Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory:
Support for integrative models of reading. Psychology In The Schools, 49(8), 725-743.
39
Floyd, R. G., Keith, T. Z., Taub, G. E., & McGrew, K. S. (2007). Cattell-Horn-Carroll cognitive
abilities and their effects on reading decoding skills: g has indirect effects, more specific
abilities have direct effects. School Psychology Quarterly, 22(2), 200-233.
Beaujean, A. A., Parkin, J., & Parker, S. (2014). Comparing CattellHornCarroll factor models:
Differences between bifactor and higher order factor models in predicting language
achievement. Psychological Assessment, 26(3), 789-805.
Blanch, A. (2015). Evaluating fluid and crystallized abilities in the performance of an
educational process. Instructional Science, 43(3), 427-442
Tusing, Mary E., and Laurie Ford. (2004). "Examining Preschool Cognitive Abilities Using a
CHC Framework." International Journal of Testing 4, no. 2: 91-114.
Niileksela, C. R., & Reynolds, M. R. (2014). Global, Broad, or Specific Cognitive Differences?
Using a MIMIC Model to Examine Differences in CHC Abilities in Children with
Learning Disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(3), 224.
Chang, M. A. (2014). Joint Confirmatory Factor Analysis of The Woodcock-Johnson Tests of
Cognitive Abilities, Third Edition, and the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth
Edition, with a Preschool Population. Psychology in The Schools, 51(1), 32-57.
Proctor, B. (2012). Relationships between CattellHornCarroll (CHC) Cognitive Abilities and
Math Achievement Within a Sample of College Students With Learning Disabilities.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(3), 278-287.
Fiorello, C. A., Thurman, S. K., Zavertnik, J., Sher, R., & Coleman, S. (2009). A comparison of
teachers' and school psychologists' perceptions of the importance of CHC abilities in the
classroom. Psychology In The Schools, 46(6), 489-500.
40
Flanagan, D. P., Fiorello, C., & Ortiz, S. O. (2010). Enhancing Practice through Application of
CHC Theory and Research: A Third Method Approach to SLD Identification.
Psychology in the Schools, 40, 739-760.
Flanagan, D. P., Ortiz, S. O., & Alfonso, V. C. (2008). Response to intervention (RTI) and
cognitive testing approaches provide different but complementary data sources that
inform SLD identification. Communiqu, 36 (5), 16-17
Flanagan, D. P., Ortiz, S. O., & Alfonso, V. C. (2013). Essentials of cross-battery assessment
(3rd edition). New York: Wiley.
Flanagan, D. P., Ortiz, S. O., Alfonso, V. C., & Dynda, A. M. (2008). Best practices in
cognitive assessment. Best Practices in School Psychology V, Bethesda: NASP
Publications.
McGrew, K. S. (1997). Analysis of the major intelligence batteries according to a proposed
comprehensive Gf-Gc framework. In D. P. Flanagan, J. L. Genshaft, & P. L. Harrison
(Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 151-179).
New York: Guilford.
McGrew, K. S., Flanagan, D. P., Keith, T. Z., & Vanderwood, M. (1997). Beyond g: The impact
of Gf-Gc specific cognitive abilities research on the future use and interpretation of
intelligence tests in the schools. School Psychology Review, 26(2), 189-210.
Proctor, C. M., & Stephens, T. L. (2010). Linking CHC to Intervention Tool: A Tool for
Explaining Assessment Results and Recommendations. Texas Womans University. The
DiaLog: Journal of the Texas Educational Diagnosticians Association, 39 (1), pp. 8-16
41
Flanagan, D., McGrew, K. & Ortiz, S. (2000). The Wechsler Intelligence Scales and Gf-Gc
theory. A contemporary approach to interpretation. Boston. Allyn & Bacon.
McGrew, K. & Flanagan, D. (1998). The intelligence test desk reference (ITDR): The Gf-Gc
cross-battery assessment. Boston. Allyn & Bacon.
McGrew, K. (1994). Clinical Interpretation of the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive
AbilityRevised. Boston. Allyn & Bacon.
National Center on Response to Intervention (March 2010). Essential Components of RTI A
Closer Look at Response to Intervention. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education, Office of Special Education Programs, National Center on Response to
Intervention.
Spearman, C. (1925). "Some Issues in the Theory of "g" (including the Law of Diminishing
Returns)". Nature 116 (2916): 436.
42