INTELLIGENCE 11, 305-316 (1987)

Between- versus Within-Family Factor Analyses of Cognitive Abilities

CRAIG T. NAGOSHI KAY PHmLIr'S University of Colorado RONALO C. JOHNSON University of Hawaii

Confirmatory factor analyses of the 15 cognitive abilities tests from the Hawaii Family Study of Cognition were conducted on between-family (BF) means and within-family (WF) differences for 370 AEA (Americans of European ancestry) and 116 AJA (Americans of Japanese ancestry) sibling pairs. Difference chi-square significance tests, goodhess-of-fit indices, and congruence coefficients for the estimated loadings on four specific cognitive abilities factors and on the second-order general intelligence factor nearly all indicated that the between-family factor structures were not significantly different from the within-family structures for both AEA and AJA siblings (the AEA and AJA structures were also not significantly different). The similarity of the BF and WF structures suggests that the genetic and environmental influences underlying cognitive abilities are "intrinsic" in nature, that is, not just due to between-family differences in culture, status, values, and fortuitous cross-assortative mating.

J e n s e n (1980) has argued for the importance of distinguishing b e t w e e n intrinsic and extrinsic correlations a m o n g organismic variables. A n intrinsic correlation b e t w e e n variables x and y m a y be due to (a) a causal-functional relationship b e t w e e n them; (b) some c o m m o n factor determining both variables; (c) a partwhole relationship b e t w e e n them; or (d) pleiotropy, such that the same gene(s) affects both variables (a subclass o f (b)) (Jensen, 1980, p. 163). A n intrinsic correlation thus c a n n o t be w i p e d out or reversed in sign by means of experimental m a n i p u l a t i o n or by means o f genetic selection, that is, a change in one variable will i n e v i t a b l y be reflected b y some predictable change in the other variable. A n

The results reported here were made possible by the collaboration of a group of investigators (G.C. Ashton, R.C. Johnson, M.P. Mi, and M.N. Rashad at the University of Hawaii and J.C. DeFries, G.E. McClearn, S.G. Vandenberg, and J.R. Wilson at the University of Colorado) supported by National Science Foundation Grant GB-34720 and National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Grant HD-06669. This paper was written while Craig Nagoshi and Kay Phillips were supported by NICHD Training Grant HD-07289. Correspondence and requests for reprints should be sent to Craig Nagoshi, Institute for Behavioral Genetics, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309-0447. 305

306

NAGOSHI, PHILLIPS, AND JOHNSON

extrinsic correlation between two variables, on the other hand, can theoretically be wiped out or reversed in sign by such experimental manipulation or genetic selection. Extrinsic correlations may be due to (a) nonlinked genetic correlation due to cross-assortative mating for traits which have no functional or other intrinsic relationship to one another; (b) correlation by genetic linkage due to the genes controlling the two traits being in close proximity on the same chromosome; or (c) extrinsic environmental correlation, where environmental factors influencing both traits are operative between families but not within families-for example, social class, cultural background, economic status, parental education, family values, etc. (Jensen, 1980). Whether a correlation between two variables is intrinsic or extrinsic thus has important implications for understanding the functional relationships between the two variables. lensen (1980) has described how sibling data can be used to determine whether a correlation between two variables is intrinsic or extrinsic. By definition, an intrinsic correlation between two variables should have roughly the same magnitude and direction whether that correlation is calculated on between-family (BF) differences, as represented by the mean score for each sibship on each variable, or within-family (WF) differences, as represented by the signed difference in scores between the members of a sibling pair on each variable. The calculation of BF and WF scores thus makes them completely orthogonal to each other. Any genetic or environmental influence that makes siblings different within a family would also produce differences between families, but the reverse would not always be true. For example, an extrinsic correlation due to fortuitous cross-assortative mating or social class differences would be wiped out when WF data are used. If the factor structure obtained for a set of variables is identical using either BF or WF data, then it can be argued that the causal factors underlying these variables ate intrinsic in nature (lensen, 1980). Jensen (1985) compared the BF and WF unrotated first principal component loadings for a battery of seven tests of cognitive abilities using a large sample of white and black families, and found the BF loadings to be identical to the WF loadings. Similarly identical loadings were also found using a battery of five cognitive tests on another smaller sample of families Oensen, 1985). Because the fwst principal component across a battery of diverse tests of cggnitive abilities may be used to define g, or the general intelligence factor theoretically underlying all cognitive abilities (Jensen, 1984, 1985; see the following for criticisms of this approach), the evidence described previously, indicating that these loadings are due to some intrinsic factor(s), has been used by Jensen (1985) as part of his argument for the construct validity of g and against the counterargnment that g is merely an artifact of cultural factors that cause particular abilities to be associated with each other within a social setting. One criticism that could be made of Jensen's BF versus WF g analyses is that the batteries of cognitive abilities tests used were not large and diverse enough to define g adequately. Data from the Hawaii Family Study of Cognition (I-IFSC)

BETWEEN- VERSUS WITHIN-FAMILY ANALYSES

307

can provide a stronger test of whether the factors underlying g are intrinsic in nature because large numbers of siblings in the HFSC were tested on a battery of 15 diverse tests of cognitive abilities. The larger number of tests and the good sample sizes allow for the preferable method of defining g as a second-order factor in a hierarchical factor analysis (Schmid & Leiman, 1957), as well as for the use of confirmatory factor-analytic techniques. In addition, comparing the results for the two largest racial/ethnic groups in the HFSC, Americans of European ancestry (AEA) and Americans of Japanese ancestry (AJA), would provide some indication of the robustness of the results.

METHOD Subjects
A total of 1,816 families (6,581 individuals, both biological parents and their teenaged or older offspring) took part in the I-IFSC (see DeFries, Johnson, et al., 1979, and Wilson et al., 1975, for descriptions of the HFSC). Although most families brought in only one offspring for testing, a sizable number did provide two or more offspring. The present report is limited to the two largest racial/ethnic groups tested in Hawaii, Americans of European ancestry (AEA, 370 families with two or more offspring tested) and Americans of Japanese ancestry (AJA, 116 families). All of these tested offspring were administered the battery of 15 cognitive abilities tests described below.
Measures The 15 tests that make up the HFSC cognition battery are listed in Table 1 (further descriptions of the tests and coefficients alpha or similar reliabilities for the entire HFSC sample can be found in Wilson et al., 1975). Principal component analyses with Varimax rotation of these tests produced a four-factor solution, with the factors clearly representing verbal ability, spatial visualization ability, perceptual speed and accuracy, and visual memory ability (see Wilson et al., 1975, for the loadings on the Varimax-rotated factor structureJ. This factor structure was found to be nearly identical for AEA and AJA subjects and across sexes (DeFries, Johnson et al., 1979). As noted above, the unrotated first principal component for this large and diverse battery of cognitive abilities tests would be one way of defining g, and HFSC first principal component scores have been found to correlate .73 with full-scale Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) scores (Kuse, 1977; see Nagoshi, Johnson, DeFries, Wilson, & Vandenberg, 1984, for the loadings on the unrotated first principal component). Cognitive test scores for the present analyses were age corrected by standardizing scores within age bands (Wilson et al., 1975). Because there were significant sex differences on several tests (Wilson et al., 1975), the measures were also corrected for gender through regression procedures. In calculating the BF and WF scores for each of the variables in the present

308

NAGOSH], PHILLIPS,AND JOHNSON

analyses, only one pair of siblings was used per family, with the selection procedure favoring sister-sister pairs, then brother-brother pairs, then brothersister pairs. BF scores were the mean score for a sibling pair on a variable, and WF scores were obtained by simply subtracting the score for the second member of the pair from that for the first. Jensen (1980) has noted the problem of the WF difference scores being less reliable than the BF mean scores and provides formulas for correcting this attenuation. It was decided not to correct either the BF or WF correlation matrices for reliability, as this would probably result in unfactorable non-Gramian matrices. Such corrections for attenuation could also be done on the resulting factor loading matrices; rather than distorting these with such corrections, however, we note here that the WF factor loadings would be of greater magnitude relative to the BF loadings had this correction been done, and we take this into account in our model-fitting analyses using a different approach.

Analyses
Simple principal component analyses with Varimax rotation of factors from a set of cognitive abilities tests, as was done in earlier analyses of HFSC data, can provide a rough approximation of specific cognitive abilities factors and an underlying g factor. Several authors, including Jensen (1985), have criticized this approach citing statistical problems, such as the inclusion of specific and error variance in component analyses, and theoretical problems, especially the issue that, by definition, g should be a latent factor determining the commonalities among the specific factors. One refmement over the principal component procedure described above would be to do an oblique factor analysis, with squared multiple correlations on the diagonal of the cognitive abilities tests correlation matrix, followed by second- and perhaps third-order factor analyses of the intercorrelations among the specific factors (Schmid & Leiman, 1957). Instead, for the present analyses, confmnatory factor analyses of a hierarchical cognitive factor model were conducted using the MINUIT (CERN, 1977) optimizer. This approach allowed for tests of the goodness of fit of the model to the AEA and AJA BF and WF matrices and for significance tests of the similarity of the estimated BF and WF structures. The structural model used is diagrammed in Figure 1. In this model, g, with fixed Variance of 1.0, is a single latent exogenous variable representing general intelligence, with F a vector of loadings of four endogenous specific abilities factors F on g. Y is a vector of the 15 age- and sex-corrected cognitive abilities test scores, and Zy is a matrix of loadings of the tests on the factors. The variances of and paths from the disturbances D to the latent endogenous factors are fixed at 1.0 in order to achieve identification of the model without having to fix any test-factor paths (Zy) at 1.0. Thus, the variances of the endogenous

BETWEEN-VERSUSWITHIN-FAMILY ANALYSES

309

factors F are greater than or equal to 1.0, and the paths r between g and F can also exceed 1.0. The covariance matrix of the factors is given by:

COV~

= rVgr'

+ d D d ' = rr' + I

The variances of disturbances U to the Y measures are fixed at 1.0. The expected
covariance of test scores is:
c o v y y = gcov gy' + uc.' : z,cov ' + uu'

When fitting the model to correlations, as in this case, instead of covariances, the variances of the Y variables are fixed at 1.0. The value of the elements of the diagonal path matrix u from the disturbances U to the Y variables can then the derived by the formula:
Uii ~-"

[1.0

(~.yCOVFl~y')ii

]1/2

The full model thus has 64 parameters (15 tests x 4 specific factors + 4 second-order factor loadings). In order to achieve identification, some of the variable loadings must be fixed from the outset. One rule of thumb suggests that the minimal number of fixed loadings required to achieve identification is the number of factors squared, in this case 16. Instead, 24 loadings were luted at zero (see Table 1) based on the criterion of having loaded 0.10 or less on the four Varimax-rotated cognitive abilities factors reported by Wilson et al. (1975). This also had the effect of "anchoring" the structure around the two visual memory tests, both of which were now allowed to load on only one factor. An additional

three near-zero loadings were fixed at 0.0 when initialanalyses indicated that the model was still not identified (standardized loadings above 1.0 indicated a Heywood case). It was expected that Factor l (as listed in the tables) would define spatial ability, Factor 2, visual memory, Factor 3, verbal ability, and Factor 4, perceptual speed (mostly defined by the numerical abilitytests subtraction and multiplication and number comparisons).

r J( y/
FIG. 1. Factor structural model.

310

NAGOSHI, PHILLIPS, AND JOHNSON

A maximum likelihood estimation procedure (Jtreskog & Strbom, 1981) was used to fit the expected correlations from the model to the separate observed 15 by 15 BF and WF correlation matrices and to simultaneously fit the model to both the BF and WF matrices for each ethnic group to test the similarity of the BF and WF factor structures. A log-likelihood ratio statistic resulted from minimization of the function:
m

F =
kffil m

Nk (lnlE(Sk)l _

lnlSkl

+ tr[SkE(Sk)--1] -- Pk),

df = ~
kffil

[l~(Pk -- 1)/2] - q,

where m is the number of observed matrices, N k is the degrees of freedom for the kth matrix, S k and E(Sk) are the kth observed and expected correlation matrices, respectively, 1~ is the order of the kth matrix, and q is the number of parameters estimated. The function was minimized using the generalized numerical optimization package MINUIT (CERN, 1977). The use of this generalized optimizer, instead of a more standardized program such as LISREL, was necessitated by the scalar parameter estimation described below.

RESULTS Tables 1 and 2 present the estimated standardized loadings on the four specific cognitive factors; Table 3 presents the estimated intercorrelations among the four specific factors; and Table 4 presents the estimated standardized loadings of the four specific factors on the second-order g factor when the AEA and AJA BF and WF cognitive test correlation matrices were separately fitted to the model described previously. Each of these matrices has 105 nonredundant correlations, with 37 parameters being estimated, resulting in 68 degrees of freedom for the model for each matrix. The maximum-likelihood chi-squares for each of the matrices were as follows: AEA BF, 152.20, p < 0.001; AEA WF, 100.44, p < 0.01; AJA BF, 91.51, p < 0.05; AJA WF, 56.77, p > 0.80. These chi-squares indicate poor fits of the model for all but the AJA WF matrix, but these significant chi-squares are also a result of the large sample sizes. The non-normed goodness-of-fit indices (Bentler & Bonett, 1980) were 0.93 for the AEA BF, 0.96 for the AEA WF, 0.93 for the AJA BF, and 1.05 for the AJA WF matrices, indicating an adequate fit for all of the matrices and an especially good fit for the AJA WF matrix. One way of testing the similarity of the BF and WF matrices would be to fit the model simultaneously to both the BF and WF matrices separately for the AEA and AJA siblings and assess the significance of the difference chi-square

BETWEEN-

VERSUS

WITHIN-FAMILY

ANALYSES

311

TABLE Betweenand Within-Family Specific Cognitive

1 Factors: Americans of European Within.Family Ancestry Factors

Between-Family Factors 1
Vocabulary Visual Things Mental rotations and multiplication memory, immediate --.15 .76 -.45 and endings .05 .63 delayed -.15 patterns form board .59 .64 -.08 .40 Ioadings

2
-.64 ------.92 ---.10 -.04 .01

3
.86 -.40 -.11 -.57 --.56 .05 .04 -.54 .39

4
.00 ---.06 .69 .07 .06 .1 1 -.20 .24 -.83 ---

1
--.16 .58 -.29 .26 .56 -.13 .48 .57 -.10 .42

2
-.67 ------.60 ---.04 .12 .03

3
.81 -.40 -.10 -.28 --.58 .19 .08 -.41 .19

4
.03 --.06 .59 .09 .15 .15 -.25 .07 -.84 ---

Subtraction Lines Word Card Visual

and dots beginnings rotations memory,

Pedigrees Hidden Paper Number Social

comparisons perception, verbal

Progressive

matrices Dashes indicate

Note.

fixed at 0.0.

TABLE Betweenand Within-Family

2 Factors: Factors Americans

Specific Cognitive
Between-Family

of Japanese
Within-Family

Ancestry Factors

1
Vocabulary Visual Things Mental rotations and multiplication memory, immediate --.17 .82 -.42 and endings .12 .59 delayed -.28 patterns form board .35 .47 -.23 .70 loadings

2
-.78 ------.58 ----.01 -.03 -.17

3
.88 -.48 -.16 -.56 --.41 .21 .05 -.54 .26

4
.00 ---.32 .72 .23 .15 .22 -.21 .30 -.84 ---

1
--.11 .57 -.19 .11 .58 -.07 .76 .56 -.06 .28

2
-.48 ------.92 ---.01 -.05 .05 "

3
.72 -.48 -.32 -.31 --.61 -.15 .06 -.44 .31

4
.01 --.04 .49 .12 .12 .04 -.30 .00 -.97 ---

Subtraction

Lines and dots Word Card Visual beginnings rotations memory,

Pedigrees Hidden Paper Number

comparisons verbal

Social perception, Progressive

matrices Dashes indicate

Note.

fixed at 0.0.

312

NAGOSHI, PHILLIPS, AND JOHNSON TABLE 3 Between- and Within-Family Factor Intercorrelattons Between.Family Factors
1 2 3 4 1

Within-Family Factors
2 3 4

Factor Factor Factor Factor

1 2 3 4

.30 .34 .42 .31 .21 .15

.50 .25 .19

.49 .24 .45

.30 .30 .53 .30 .27 .15

.37 .24 .27

.46 .29 .37

Note. AEA above the diagonal; AJA below the diagonal.

between the chi-square of this simultaneous BF-WF estimation versus the sum of the chi-squares of the separate BF and WF estimations. Because the separate solutions in effect involve 74 parameters, this difference chi-square would have 37 degrees of freedom. In addition, in consideration of the BF versus WF score reliability problem discussed above, it was decided to include an additional scalar parameter, with the loss of another degree of freedom, reflecting the extent to which the WF factor loadings can be interpreted as being some constant fraction of the BF factor loadings. For the AEA siblings the chi-square of the simultaneous BF-WF estimation was 302.44 (172 df, p < 0.001), resulting in a difference 2 of 49.80 (36 df, p> 0.05), whereas for the AJA siblings the simultaneous BF-WF X2 was 203.01 (172 df, p > 0.05), resulting in a difference 2 of 54.73 (p < 0.025). The difference chi-squares thus indicated that perhaps there was a significant difference between the estimated BF and WF factor structures for AJA siblings, although this might be due to the especially good fit noted above for the separately fitted AJA WF matrix. On the other hand, the simultaneous BF-WF estimation produced a goodness-of-fit index of 0.95 for the AEA siblings and 0.96 for the AJA siblings, indicating adequate fits of the simultaneous solutions and minimal loss of fit compared to the separate solutions.

TABLE 4 Between-Family (BF) vs. Within-Family (WF) g Loadings

AEA
BF Factor Factor Factor Factor 1 2 3 4 .74 .37 .68 .66 WF .68 .44 .54 .67 BF .84 .41 .51 .37

AJA
WF .76 .40 .69 .39

BETWEEN- VERSUS WITHIN-FAMILYANALYSES

313

The scalar parameter was estimated as 0.89 for both the AEA and AJA siblings. According to Jensen (1980), the reliability of a sibling difference (i.e., the WF) score is given by: ro_ Y = (rxx - ryo)/(1 -- ryo), and the reliability of a sibling mean (i.e., the BF) score is given by: r x = (rxx + rvo)/(1 + ryo), where r x x is the reliability of the test and r y o is the sibling correlation on the test. For both AEA and AJA subjects in the HFSC, the average alpha reliability across the 15 cognitive tests was 0.80, whereas the average sibling correlation was 0.22 for AEA families and 0.21 for AJA families (DeFries, Johnson, et al., 1979). From this, the average r o _ v -- 0.74 and the average r x -- 0.84 for AEA siblings, and the ratio of ro_v/rx = 0.88. Similarly, for the AJA siblings the ratio of ro_y/r x = 0.75/0.84 = 0.89, that is, the scalar parameters reported above correspond exactly to differences in the reliabilities of the BF and WF scores. The Akaike Information Criterion (A/C) (Akaike, 1973, 1974; Larimore & Mehra, 1985) is another index proposed to assess the adequacy of structural models by balancing the loss of fit in chi-square values with the gain in parsimony when parameters are dropped from models. This index minimizes negentropy, or prediction error, by increasingly penalizing the use of parameters in model fitting according to the formula:
a c = x2 + 2p,

where P is the number of parameters used in fitting the model. The A/C for the AEA simultaneous BF-WF solution is 378.44 and 400.64 for the separate solutions; for the AJA siblings, the respective A/Cs are 279.01 and ~96.28, clearly favoring the simultaneous over the separate solutions for both groups. Fitting the model to all four matrices simultaneously, with a single scalar parameter for the BF versus WF difference in the overall magnitude of the factor loadings, resulted in a 2 of 544.12 (382 dr, p < 0.001), a goodness-of-fit index of 0.96, and an A/C of 620.12, which is far lower than the A/C of 692.92 obtained when the four matrices are fitted separately. A final test of the similarity of the BF and WF factor structures would be simply to calculate congruence coefficients on the estimated specific (Table 1 and Table 2) and second-order (Table 3) factor loadings. For the AEA siblings, congruence coefficients for the corresponding BF and WF specific factor loadings were 0.98, 0.96, 0.96, and 0.97; for the AJA siblings, the congruence coefficients were 0.87, 0.88, 0.92, and 0.89. Similarly high congruence coeffi-

314

NAGOSHI, PHILLIPS,AND JOHNSON

cients were found for the factor loadings compared across the two ethnic groups. Congruence coefficients were even higher for the second-order g loadings (0.99 for the AEA BF vs. WF loadings, 0.99 for the AJA BF vs. WF loadings), in spite of the small number of loadings involved. These results cunfirmed earlier findings of very high congruence coefficients for BF versus WF factor structures obtained for unrotated first principal components and Varimax-rotated specific factor loadings derived from these cognitive test matrices.

DISCUSSION Nearly all of the indices used in the present analyses thus support a high degree of similarity in the factor structures of cognitive ability test scores calculated between versus within families. In other words, they suggest that the genetic and environmental factors underlying cognitive abilities are intrinsic in nature. These indices also suggest that these BF and WF structures are similar across the AEA and AJA ethnic groups, despite some earlier findings that may have led one to expect especially strong between-family effects for the AJA group. As reported by DeFries, Corley, Johnson, Vandenberg, and Wilson (1982) and Nagoshi and Johnson (1985), AJA offspring in the HFSC scored considerably better than their parents on the battery of HFSC cognitive tests and on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, with only minimal generational changes being found for the AEA families. This AJA generational change undoubtedly reflects historical developments in Hawaii that produced increased social mobility and status for the AJA parental generation (Johnson et al., 1983; Nagoshi, Johnson, Yuen, & Ahem, 1986; see also Daws, 1968, and Lind, 1980, for histories of Hawaii). Data from biological families do not allow for conclusions as to whether these intrinsic factors are genetic and/or environmental in nature, although such conclusions would theoretically be possible if these methods were applied to twin and/or adoptive sibling data. The results presented here are consistent with the conclusions of DeFries, Kuse, and Vandenberg (1979) that genetic and environmental factors underlying cognitive abilities may operate in similar ways. These results may also support the hypothesis that within-family envi(.onmental influences (Rowe & Plomin, 1981) are important in the development of the structure of cognitive abilities. For these data, factors operating only between families, such as cultural differences and fortuitous cross-assortative mating, thus do not appear to have important effects that can be differentiated from within-family influences on the structure of cognitive abilities, although as noted above, they may have important effects on mean differences between groups. Similar indirect evidence from the HFSC also suggests that these between-family factors have only a minimal influence on differences between groups in their specific cognitive abilities pro-

BETWEEN- VERSUS wrrHIN-FAMILY ANALYSES

315

ides (Nagoshi & ]ohnson, 1987). These findings may provide guideposts in the search for the specific factors underlying cognition. REFERENCES
Akaike, H. (1973). Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In B.N. Petrov & F. Csaki (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Information Theory. Budapest, Hungary: Ad_a_demiaiKiado. Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, AC-19, 716-723. Bender, P.M., & Bonett, D.G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606. European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN, 1977). MINUIT: A system for function minimization and analysis of the parameter errors and correlations. Geneva, Switzerland. Daws, G. (1968). Shoal of time: A history of the Hawaiian Islands. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. DeFries, J.C., Corley, R.P., Johnson, R.C., Vandenberg, S.G., & Wilson, J.R. (1982). Sex-bygeneration and ethnic group-by-generation interactions in the Hawaii Family Study of Cognition. Behavior Genetics, 12, 223-230. DeFries, J.C., Johnson, R.C., Kuse, A.R., McClearn, G.E., Polovina, J., Vandenberg, S.G., & Wilson, J.R. (1979). Familial resemblance for specific cognitive abilities. Behavior Genetics, 9, 23-43. DeFries, J.C., Kuso, A.R., & Vandenberg, S.G. (1979). Genetic correlations, environmental correlations, and behavior. In J.R. Royce & L.P. Mos (Eds.), Theoretical advances in behavior genetics. Alphen ann den Rijn, The Netherlands: Sijthoff & Noordhoff. Jensen, A.R. (1980). Uses of sibling data in educational and psychological research. American Educational Research Journal, 17, 153-170. Jensen, A.R. (1984). Test validity: g versus the specificity docU'ine. Journal of Social and Biological Structures, 7, 93-118. Jensen, A.R. (1985, April). The g beyond factor analysis. Paper presented in Buros-Nebraska Symposium on Measurement and Testing, "The Influence of Cognitive Psychology on Testing and Measurement," University of Nebraska, Lincoln. Johnson, R.C., Nagoshi, C.T., Ahem, F.M., Wilson, J.R., DeFries, J.C., McCleam, G.E., & Vandenberg, S.G. (1983). Family background, cognitive ability, and personality as predictors of educational and occupational attainment. Social Biology, 30, 86-100. I6reskog, K.G., & S6rbom, D. (1981). LISREL V: Analysis of linear structural relationships by maximum likelihood and least squares methods. Uppsala, Sweden: University of Uppsala. Kuse, A.R. (1977). Familial resemblance for cognitive abilities estimated from two test batteries. Unpublished doctoral disseffation, University of Colorado, Boulder. Larimore, W.E., & Mehra, R.K. (1985). The problem of over-fitting data. Byte, 10, 167-180. Lind, A.H. (1980). Hawaii's people (4th ed.). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Nagoshi, C.T., & Johnson, R.C. (1985). Ethnic group-by-generation interactions in WAIS scores in the Hawaii Family Study of Cognition. Intelligence, 9, 259-264. Nagoshi, C.T., & Johnson, R.C. (1987). Cognitive abifities profiles of Caucasian vs. Japanese subjects in the Hawaii Family Study of Cognition. Personality and Individual Differences, 8, 581-583. Nagoshi, C.T., Johnson, R.C., DeFries, J.C., Wilson, LR., & Vandenberg, S.G. (1984). Group differences and fh'st principal component loadings in the Hawaii Family Study of Cognition: A test of the generality of "Spearman's hypothesis." Personality and IndividualDifferences, 5, 751-753.

316

NAGOSHI, PHILLIPS, AND JOHNSON

Nagoshi, C.T., Johnson, R.C., Yuen, S.H.L., & Ahem, F.M. (1986). Further investigations of educational and occupational attainment in the Hawaii Family Study of Cognition. Social Biology, 33, 35-50. Rowe, D.C., & Plomin, R. (1981). The importance of nonshared (ED environmental influences in behavioral development. Developmental Psychology, 17, 517-531. Schmid, J., & Leiman, J.M. (1957). The development of hierarchical factor solutions. Psychometrika, 22, 53-61. Wilson, J.R., DeFries, LC., McClearn, G.E., Vandenberg, S.G., Johnson, R.C., Mi, M.P., & Rashad, M.N. (1975). Use of family data as a control to assess sex and age differences in two ethnic groups. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 6, 261-276.