See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/303746858

The Cattell-Horn-Carroll Model of Cognition for Clinical

Assessment

Article  in  Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment · June 2016

DOI: 10.1177/0734282916651360

CITATIONS READS

13 1,633

3 authors:

Paul Jewsbury Stephen C Bowden

Educational Testing Service University of Melbourne
8 PUBLICATIONS   53 CITATIONS    136 PUBLICATIONS   2,477 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Kevin Duff
University of Utah
226 PUBLICATIONS   4,842 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

PREDICT-HD View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Paul Jewsbury on 24 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

651360
research-article2016
JPAXXX10.1177/0734282916651360Journal of Psychoeducational AssessmentJewsbury et al.

Article
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment
1­–21
The Cattell–Horn–Carroll Model of © The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
Cognition for Clinical Assessment sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0734282916651360
jpa.sagepub.com

Paul A. Jewsbury1, Stephen C. Bowden1,2, and Kevin Duff3

Abstract
The Cattell–Horn–Carroll (CHC) model is a comprehensive model of the major dimensions
of individual differences that underlie performance on cognitive tests. Studies evaluating the
generality of the CHC model across test batteries, age, gender, and culture were reviewed and
found to be overwhelmingly supportive. However, less research is available to evaluate the CHC
model for clinical assessment. The CHC model was shown to provide good to excellent fit in
nine high-quality data sets involving popular neuropsychological tests, across a range of clinically
relevant populations. Executive function tests were found to be well represented by the CHC
constructs, and a discrete executive function factor was found not to be necessary. The CHC
model could not be simplified without significant loss of fit. The CHC model was supported as a
paradigm for cognitive assessment, across both healthy and clinical populations and across both
nonclinical and neuropsychological tests. The results have important implications for theoretical
modeling of cognitive abilities, providing further evidence for the value of the CHC model as a
basis for a common taxonomy across test batteries and across areas of assessment.

Keywords
Cattell–Horn–Carroll, executive function, confirmatory factor analysis, invariance

Introduction
The construct validities of cognitive ability tests used for clinical diagnostic assessment, espe-
cially neuropsychological tests, do not appear to be well established. For example, Dodrill (1997,
1999) pointed out that commonly cited neuropsychological constructs (e.g., attention, learning,
and motor abilities) are not clearly and consistently supported by empirical research. Other stud-
ies have identified uncertainty in the construct validities of various neuropsychological tests
(e.g., Chaytor & Schmitter-Edgecombe, 2003; Dodrill, 1997, 1999; Gansler, Jerram, Vannorsdall,
& Shretlen, 2011; Jurado & Rosselli, 2007; Salthouse, 2005; Salthouse, Atkinson, & Berish,
2003; Spooner & Pachana, 2006).
Sometimes, validity interpretations rely on clinical usage and established practice as much as
on rigorous construct validity evaluations (Lezak, Howieson, & Loring, 2004; E. Strauss,

1The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia

2StVincent’s Hospital, Melbourne, Australia
3University of Utah, Salt Lake City, USA

Corresponding Author:
Paul A. Jewsbury, Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3010,
Australia.
Email: jewsbury@unimelb.edu.au

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com by guest on June 2, 2016

2 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 

Sherman, & Spreen, 2006). An example is the taxonomy of “neurocognitive domains” provided
in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM-5; American Psychiatric
Association [APA], 2013). The taxonomy apparently derives from informal clinical usage, with-
out a clear empirical or theoretical justification, but is intended to provide a guide to diagnostic
assessment practices and interpretation of individual patient mental status.
In contrast to less formal clinical taxonomies, the Cattell–Horn–Carroll (CHC) model is based
on psychometric intelligence and cognitive ability research conducted over much of the last cen-
tury (McGrew, 2005; Reynolds, Keith, Flanagan, & Alfonso, 2013). The CHC model is a factor
analysis–based model, which describes the major (broad ability) and minor (narrow ability)
sources or factors of individual differences captured by cognitive tests. The factor structure of
cognitive tests provides a critical test of construct validity and also provides insight on the cogni-
tive abilities, as represented by factors, that underlie cognitive test performance (M. E. Strauss &
Smith, 2009; Widaman & Reise, 1997). For clinical assessment, the most relevant constructs in
the CHC model include the broad constructs of visuospatial ability (Gv), working memory
(Gsm), long-term memory encoding and retrieval (Glr), acquired knowledge or crystallized abil-
ity (Gc), processing speed (Gs), and fluid reasoning (Gf). However, there is also an additional
level of more specific constructs known as narrow abilities, and there are other less well-under-
stood broad constructs, such as auditory ability (Ga) and tactile ability (Gh; McGrew, 2009).
The CHC model is the result of the integration of John Carroll’s (1993) exploratory factor
analytical review of over 460 data sets and the developing consensus in the intelligence literature
around the work of Raymond Cattell, John Horn, and other scholars represented by modern Gf–
Gc theory (McGrew, 2005). The CHC model is the most strongly supported, empirically derived
taxonomy of cognitive abilities (Ackerman & Lohman, 2006; Kaufman, 2009; McGrew, 2005;
Newton & McGrew, 2010) and has influenced the development of most contemporary intelli-
gence tests (Bowden, 2013; Kaufman, 2009; Keith & Reynolds, 2010). For a description of CHC
constructs, see McGrew (2009), Schneider and McGrew (2012), or the Supplemental Materials.
For a history of the CHC model, see Schneider and Flanagan (2015), Schneider and McGrew
(2012), and Ortiz (2015).
The present article is based on the premise that carefully conducted group studies, using well-
researched psychometric methodology and guided by the high-quality cognitive ability research
incorporated in the CHC model, can be used to address current questions in clinical construct
validity. However, the CHC model is primarily supported by studies with nonclinical cognitive
ability tests in community and educational samples (Carroll, 1993). In contrast, clinical assess-
ment often involves clinical tests, or tests specifically developed for assessment of clinical cogni-
tive symptoms, which have been less studied with respect to the CHC model. Furthermore,
clinical assessment often involves special populations, such as individuals with disorders or par-
ticular brain injuries. Finally, some constructs that are commonly assessed in clinical assessment
are not present in the CHC model, such as executive function.
Therefore, for the CHC model to have utility in clinical and neuropsychological assessment,
the critical issues are (a) the generality of the CHC constructs across tests, (b) the generality of
the CHC model across populations, and (c) the potential integration of neuropsychological con-
structs, most notably executive function, into the CHC model.

The Generality of the CHC Model Across Tests

One possible reservation regarding the CHC model is that constructs measured by one test bat-
tery may not be the same constructs measured by other test batteries (Horn, 1991; Reynolds et al.,
2013; Tucker, 1958). However, the CHC model is consistent with all contemporary intelligence
test batteries (see Table 1). Studies with multiple test batteries provide a stronger test of the
hypothesis that the CHC constructs are shared across test batteries. In a landmark paper,

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com by guest on June 2, 2016

Jewsbury et al. 3

Table 1.  Summary of Studies Showing CHC-Consistent Models for Popular Intelligence Batteries,
Analyzed Alone or With Another Intelligence Battery.

Intelligence battery Other test battery in the same data set

Cognitive Assessment System
Differential Ability Scales–II
Kaufman Assessment Battery for
Children–II
Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scales–Fifth
Edition
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–IV
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for
Children–IV
Woodcock–Johnson III
On its own and with the Woodcock–Johnson III (Keith,
Kranzler, & Flanagan, 2001)
On its own (Elliott, 2007; Keith & Reynolds, 2010)
On its own (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004; Reynolds, Keith,
Fine, Fisher, & Low, 2007) and with the Woodcock–
Johnson III (Hunt, 2007)
With Woodcock–Johnson III (Roid, 2003)
On its own (Weiss, Keith, Zhu, & Chen, 2013a)
On its own (Keith, Fine, Taub, Reynolds, & Kranzler, 2006;
Wechsler, 2003; Weiss, Keith, Zhu, & Chen, 2013b)
On its own (Keith et al., 2001; Taub & McGrew, 2004;
Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001), with the
Cognitive Assessment System (Keith et al., 2001),
with the Differential Ability Scales (Sanders, McIntosh,
Dunham, Rothlisberg, & Finch, 2007; Tusing & Ford,
2004), with the Kaufman Assessment Battery for
Children–II (Hunt, 2007), with Stanford–Binet Intelligence
Scales–Fifth Edition (Roid, 2003), and with the Wechsler
Intelligence Scale for Children–III (Phelps, McGrew,
Knopik, & Ford, 2005).

Note. CHC = Cattell–Horn–Carroll.

Woodcock (1990) showed that a CHC precursor, modern Gf–Gc theory, and by extension the
CHC model, was consistent with the factorial structure of data sets with Woodcock–Johnson–
Revised in conjunction with the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, the Stanford–Binet
IV, the Wechsler Intelligence Scale–III, or the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Revised
(WAIS-R), respectively. Several additional cross-battery factor analyses have been conducted
recently, and these also show that the CHC constructs are independent of the test used to measure
the respective constructs (see Table 1).
One cross-battery study of particular value involved the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for
Children–III, Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–IV, Kaufman Assessment Battery for
Children–II, Woodcock–Johnson III, and Peabody Individual Achievement Test–Revised test
batteries in a single analysis (Reynolds et al., 2013). All children in the sample were administered
the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children–II along with one or more of the other test batter-
ies as part of the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children–II test validation process (Kaufman
& Kaufman, 2004). Reynolds and colleagues (2013) found that all but one of the 39 subtests
loaded on the predicted CHC factor and that the CHC factors generalized across each battery.
Woodcock–Johnson III Picture Recognition was found to load better on the long-term memory
encoding and retrieval ability (Glr) factor than on the expected visuospatial ability (Gv) factor,
but this is not incongruent with the CHC model and may instead suggest that Picture Recognition
is primarily dependent on associative abilities rather than on visuospatial abilities. Evidence to
date shows that, when conducted in a careful, confirmatory factor analysis framework, the evi-
dence supports the hypothesis that CHC constructs transcend particular test batteries. This is an
important observation because if the CHC model generalizes to other test batteries and popula-
tions, then the CHC model may provide a useful practical guide to test development and interpre-
tation and, ultimately, a general model of diagnostic assessment.

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com by guest on June 2, 2016

4 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 

The Generality of the CHC Model Across Populations

Another potential reservation is that constructs underlying test performance may depend on the
population. This issue is analytically described by the mathematics of measurement invariance
(Meredith, 1993; Widaman & Reise, 1997). Measurement invariance is observed when the con-
ditional distribution of the observed variables given values of the latent variables is equal across
populations. Establishing measurement invariance is necessary for assuring the generality of
construct validity across populations, including unambiguous interpretation of convergent and
discriminant validity and interpretation of group mean differences (Horn & McArdle, 1992;
Meredith & Teresi, 2006; Widaman & Reise, 1997).
To date, a limited number of studies have examined whether factor models of intelligence or
other cognitive ability tests show measurement invariance across putatively different community
control and clinical populations. Published studies are summarized in Table 2. Some studies were
explicitly based on the CHC model, whereas other studies were consistent with the CHC model.
Not included in Table 2 are studies that have not clearly distinguished measurement and struc-
tural invariance and therefore reported ambiguous results (e.g., Dickinson, Goldberg, Gold,
Elvevåg, & Weinberger, 2011; Dickinson, Ragland, Calkins, Gold, & Gur, 2006; Genderson
et al., 2007; Leeson et al., 2009). Every study that has examined measurement invariance in the
recommended sequence without conflating structural invariance (Widaman & Reise, 1997) has
found evidence of measurement invariance of constructs across diverse populations reporting
factor structures compatible with the CHC model.

The CHC Model and Executive Function

Executive function is an umbrella term for intentional, top-down cognitive processes including
problem solving, reasoning, planning, regulation, and working memory that are believed to be
necessary for independent, self-serving behavior (Diamond, 2013; Lezak et al., 2004). It is
hypothesized that much neurological and psychiatric dysfunction can be described in terms of
failure of executive function (e.g., Barch, 2005; Diamond, 2013; Penadés et al., 2007; Royall
et al., 2002; Shallice, 1982). However, executive function is not well defined, and there is dis-
agreement in the literature regarding the unity or diversity of executive function, the factor
dimensionality of executive function, and equivalence of executive function with (pre)frontal
cortex function (Alvarez & Emory, 2006; Jurado & Rosselli, 2007; Roca et al., 2010; Royall
et al., 2002).
Although executive function is considered to have central importance in contemporary neuro-
psychological assessment (Lezak et al., 2004), executive function is not overtly described by the
CHC model. Limited research has been conducted to investigate the distinctiveness of executive
function in relation to traditional cognitive constructs such as those described by the CHC model.
The available research is mixed and does not clearly support executive function as distinct con-
structs (Floyd, Bergeron, Hamilton, & Parra, 2010; Friedman et al., 2006; Jewsbury, Bowden, &
Strauss, 2016; Salthouse, 2005; Salthouse et al., 2003).

The Present Study

The question of whether the CHC model is compatible with the factor structure of clinical and
neuropsychological tests can be broken up into three specific, testable hypotheses. First, does the
CHC model apply to diverse cognitive and neuropsychological tests? Second, does the CHC
model apply to clinically relevant populations? Third, does the CHC model need to be expanded
to account for the clinical construct of executive function?

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com by guest on June 2, 2016

Jewsbury et al. 5

Table 2.  Summary of Measurement Invariance Studies of CHC-Consistent Models of Cognitive Tests.

Populations across which measurement

Study Battery invariance observed
Bowden et al. (2001) WAIS-R and WMS-R Community adults versus adults with
alcohol dependency
Bowden, Cook, Bardenhagen, WAIS-R and WMS-R Community adults and adults with
Shores, and Carstairs (2004) heterogeneous neurological
conditions
Gladsjo et al. (2004) Neuropsychological Community adults versus adults with
battery psychosis
Bowden, Weiss, Holdnack, and WAIS-III Ages ranging between 16 to 89 years
Lloyd (2006) and older
Bowden, Lissner, McCarthy, WAIS-III U.S. versus Australian adults
Weiss, and Holdnack (2007)
Bowden, Gregg, et al. (2008) WAIS-III and WMS-III Community adults versus adults with
learning disabilities or attention
deficit hyperactivity disorder
Bowden, Lange, Weiss, and WAIS-III U.S. versus Canadian adults
Saklofske (2008)
Bowden, Weiss, Holdnack, WAIS-III U.S. community adults versus
Bardenhagen, and Cook (2008) Australian adults with heterogeneous
neurological conditions
Chen and Zhu (2008) WISC-IV Male versus female children
Tuokko et al. (2009) Neuropsychological French- versus English-speaking
battery Canadian elders
Chen, Keith, Chen, and Chang WISC-IV Chinese, Hong Kong, Macanese, and
(2009) Taiwanese children
Siedlecki et al. (2010) Neuropsychological Spanish- versus English-speaking U.S.
battery adults
Bowden, Saklofske, and Weiss WAIS-IV U.S. versus Canadian adults
(2011)
Chen and Zhu (2012) WISC-IV Community children versus children
from clinical populations
Weiss, Keith, Zhu, and Chen WAIS-IV Community adults versus adults from
(2013a) clinical populations
Weiss, Keith, Zhu, and Chen WISC-IV Community children versus children
(2013b) from clinical populations

Note. CHC = Cattell–Horn–Carroll; WAIS-R = Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Revised; WMS-R = Wechsler
Memory Scale–Revised; WISC-IV = Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–IV; WJ = Woodcock–Johnson.

Method
Data Analysis
Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted with Mplus Version 6.1 (Muthén & Muthén, 2010)
with maximum likelihood estimation. Goodness of fit was evaluated on the basis of the maxi-
mum likelihood chi-square, as well as commonly reported fit indices including the root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA), the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR),
the comparative fit index (CFI), and the nonnormed fit or Tucker–Lewis index (TLI). The fit
indices were compared with the cutoff values suggested by Hu and Bentler (1999), namely, <.06
for the RMSEA, <.08 for the SRMR, and >.95 for the CFI and TLI as indicating good fit.

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com by guest on June 2, 2016

6 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 

However, the caveats voiced by Marsh, Hau, and Wen (2004) were considered, in particular the
caveat that it is harder to satisfy Hu and Bentler’s cutoff rules for good model fit with a relatively
large number of indicators (viz., more than two or three per factor).
For most data sets, only the correlation or covariance matrices were available. The raw, indi-
vidual-level data set was only available for the data set from Duff, Schoenberg, Scott, and Adams
(2005). The analysis for this data set was conducted with full information maximum likelihood
estimation based on the raw scores. To account for skewness in the neuropsychological variables,
nonnormality robust estimators were also used for the data from Duff and colleagues (specifi-
cally, MLR or robust maximum likelihood with chi-square asymptotically equivalent to the
Yuan-Bentler T2* test statistic; MLM or maximum likelihood with Satorra-Bentler chi-square
statistic; and MLMV or maximum likelihood with mean- and variance- adjusted chi-square sta-
tistic; note that other differences exist in the standard error estimation and missing data treatment;
details in Muthén & Muthén, 2010, and the Supplemental Materials).

Sample of Studies Used for Confirmatory Factor Analysis

To locate studies, a search of Google Scholar and PsycINFO was conducted in June 2013 with
combinations of the keywords factor analysis, neuropsychology, neuropsychological tests, neu-
ropsychological population, neuropsychological sample, clinical sample, clinical population,
mixed sample, mixed population, referral sample, referral population, executive function,
Stanford Binet, Woodcock Johnson, WISC, and WAIS. To supplement the search, reviews of cita-
tions by, and citations of, key relevant articles were also examined. Although a large number of
factor analyses were found, only nine data sets satisfied the selection criteria for reanalysis
described below.

Confirmatory Study Selection Criteria

To ensure that high-quality data sets were included, the criteria for study selection were relatively
strict as follows:

1. To allow for a confirmatory analysis to be conducted, at least the correlation matrix was
available either in the article or from the authors.
2. For an adequate sample size, the sample size was at least 200.
3. To be relevant for the present topic, the data set had tests commonly used in neuropsycho-
logical assessment.
4. To allow identification of multiple CHC constructs, the data set had at least 15 different
tests or subtests. This was chosen as an arbitrary but objective criterion to attempt to
avoid factor solutions with sole indicators and to ensure that there would be adequate
sampling of the CHC constructs, especially to model alongside a potential executive
function factor where possible. Because most data sets of cognitive batteries were con-
sidered, a priori, likely to yield at least four CHC factors (typically Gv/Gf, Gc, Gsm,
and Gs), a minimum of three indicators is desirable to identify a factor (Brown, 2006;
Kline, 2011), and at least three additional indicators would be required to identify an
executive factor; 15 indicators was considered a workable minimum number of
indicators.
5. To provide confidence that the CHC constructs were correctly identified, the data set had
tests with generally accepted and well-established construct validity (e.g., Wechsler
Intelligence Scales for Adults or Children, Wechsler Memory Scales, Stanford–Binet
Intelligence Scales, or Woodcock–Johnson Intelligence Scales) along with tests of more
controversial construct validity (e.g., executive function tests).

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com by guest on June 2, 2016

Jewsbury et al. 7

The following two criteria were optional to obtain as wide a variety of data sets as possible,
but for special relevance for the present topic, the following criteria were sought.

6.  Ideally, the population was relevant to neuropsychological assessment (e.g., a clinical
population).
7.  Ideally, some tests are identified as executive function tests by the study authors.

Procedure
The models reported below were specified, a priori, to be consistent both with conceptual descrip-
tions of CHC theory and previous research (Carroll, 1993; Flanagan, McGrew, & Ortiz, 2000;
McGrew, 2009). When there were multiple indicators from the same test, the residuals were
allowed to correlate to account for method variance (Kline, 2011; Larrabee, 2003). After the
model was estimated, any nonsignificant factor loadings and residual correlations were removed
from the model. The standardized residuals and modification indices were examined, but post
hoc modifications were made with reluctance (MacCallum, Roznowski, & Necowitz, 1992).
Modifications were only made when the associated modification index was significant and very
large relative to other modification indices for the same model, and the modification was theo-
retically interpretable. The one post hoc modification, in one data set, that met this criterion is
described in detail below.
The possible addition of an executive function construct to the respective CHC models, speci-
fied for each data set, was evaluated by adding an executive function factor to each model if the
original authors hypothesized certain indicators to be executive function tests. Wherever executive
function factors were specified in the present study, the tests selected as executive function indica-
tors were exactly consistent with the original authors’ classification of executive function tests.
This strategy required that the executive function indicators were double-loaded on the relevant
CHC factor and the new executive function factor. Loading the executive function indicators on
both the relevant CHC factor and the new executive function factor corresponds to the dominant
conceptual view that executive function indicators are confounded with nonexecutive variance
(known as the task impurity problem; Miyake, Friedman, Emerson, Witzki, Howerter, & Wager,
2000). However, this double-loaded model may be underidentifed. Therefore, as a second possible
executive function model, the loadings of the executive function tests on CHC factors were
removed, such that executive function tests were loaded only on the executive function actor.
Finally, the hypothesis that putative executive function tests might measure executive func-
tions specific to each test was investigated. Reliable unique variance for each test was estimated
with a method described in the Supplemental Materials. The hypothesis that putative executive
function tests have greater unique variance than nonexecutive tests was examined with a t test.

Results
Nine data sets were selected for reanalysis. These data sets, along with the fit statistics of the
associated CHC model, are shown in Table 3. Due to space limitations, only one reanalysis was
described here in full detail as an example. The remaining reanalyses were described in full detail
in the Supplemental Materials, and only the overall results were reported in the main body of the
text.

Reanalysis of dataset from Duff et al. (2005)

Duff and colleagues (2005) investigated the relationship between executive function tests and
learning and memory tests. The participants were 212 patients referred for neuropsychological

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com by guest on June 2, 2016

8 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 

Table 3.  Selected Studies and Fit Statistics for the CHC Model.

Data set n Special relevance χ2 df p RMSEA SRMR CFI TLI

Duff, Schoenberg, 212 Neuropsychological 461 300 .00 .050 .047 .96 .95
Scott, and Adams referral sample
(2005)
Greenaway, Smith, 314 Elderly sample 206 122 .00 .047 .042 .96 .95
Tangalos, Geda, and
Ivnik (2009)
McCabe, Roediger, 206 Diverse sample 148 103 .00 .046 .046 .97 .97
McDaniel, Balota,
and Hambrick (2010)
Goldstein and Shelly 600 Neuropsychological 563 234 .00 .048 .033 .96 .95
(1972) referral sample
Dowling, Hermann, 650 Sample at risk for 271 106 .00 .049 .042 .96 .95
La Rue, and Sager Alzheimer’s disease
(2010)
Pontón, Gonzalez, 300 Cultural and language 102 86 .11 .025 .031 .99 .99
Hernandez, Herrera, generality
and Higareda (2000)
Salthouse, Fristoe, and 259 Diverse sample 93 79 .14 .026 .032 .99 .99
Rhee (1996)
Bowden, Cook, 277 Neuropsychological 334 153 .00 .065 .049 .95 .94
Bardenhagen, Shores, referral sample
and Carstairs (2004)
Bowden et al. (2004) 399 Representative 303 153 .00 .050 .044 .96 .95
community sample

Note. All above studies used adult samples. CHC = Cattell–Horn–Carroll; RMSEA = root mean square error of
approximation; SRMR = standardized root mean square residual; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis
index.

evaluation, with a variety of suspected neurological and psychiatric conditions (age M = 50

years, SD = 16.6; education M = 13.5 years, SD = 2.8).
Duff and colleagues’ (2005) individual-level data set was retrieved for this study. The pres-
ent reanalysis was based on the individual-level data set with full information maximum
likelihood estimation. The reanalysis involved all 15 indicators in the original study as well
as the WAIS-R subtests, and Trail Making Test–Part A, which were not analyzed in the origi-
nal study.
After specifying and examining the initial CHC model, the secondary loadings of Trail Making
Test–Part B on Gsm (r = .10, SE = .10, p = .29) and WAIS-R Arithmetic on GvGf (r = −.04,
SE = .11, p = .73) were removed because of nonsignificance, but all other a priori factor assign-
ments were associated with significant loadings in the expected direction. On the basis of a rela-
tively large modification index (36.61), residuals from WAIS-R Block Design and WAIS-R
Object Assembly were allowed to correlate. Although this was not originally hypothesized, the
size of the modification index suggests the correlation was not capturing sample-specific error
and instead may represent the narrow ability visualization (Gv–Vz; McGrew, 2009). The final
model is shown in Figure 1.
Table 3 shows that the CHC final model had a significant chi-square value, suggesting imper-
fect fit. However, the RMSEA, SRMR, and CFI values were better than their respective cutoff
values, and the TLI value was on the cutoff value (Hu & Bentler, 1999). These conclusions did
not change with the use of nonnormality robust methods (see Supplemental Materials).

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com by guest on June 2, 2016

Jewsbury et al. 9

Figure 1.  Final model for the Duff, Schoenberg, Scott, and Adams (2005) reanalysis.
Note. WCST = Wisconsin Card Sorting Test; Gsm = working memory; ROCFT = Rey–Osterrieth Complex Figure
Test; Gv = visuospatial ability; Gf = fluid reasoning; Glr = long-term memory encoding and retrieval; Gc = acquired
knowledge or crystallized ability; RAVLT = Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test; COWAT = Controlled Oral Word
Association Test; Gs = processing speed.

In this data set, the original authors described five indicators as executive function tests.
Adding an executive function factor modeled by Wisconsin Card Sort Test, Controlled Oral Word
Association Test, Trail Making Test–Part B, WAIS-R Similarities, and WAIS-R Digit Span–
backward to the CHC model, with each test also loaded onto the relevant CHC factor, produced
a model with a nonpositive definite latent variable covariance matrix. This may be related to high
estimated correlations between the executive function factor and Gsm and Gs (r = .91, SE = .32,
and r = 1.05, SE = .14, respectively). The alternate model, where the indicators of the executive
function factor were only loaded on the executive function factor, also resulted in a nonpositive
definite latent variable covariance matrix, and similar high estimated correlations. As a conse-
quence, both variants of the executive function model were not viable alternatives and the execu-
tive function factor was found to be statistically redundant.
Table 4 shows the estimates and standard errors for the unique variances for each indicator in
the data set. On average, test indicators were made up of 54% (SD = 13) variance explained by
the CHC constructs, 32% (SD = 10) unreliable variance, and 13% (SD = 15) reliable unique vari-
ance. The variance accounted for in the model by the correlated residuals is counted in the unique
variance. The unique variance of the five executive function measures (M = 15%) was not sig-
nificantly different from the unique variance observed for the 22 nonexecutive function measures
(M = 13%; t = .21, df = 25, p = .84).
The reanalyses for the remaining eight data sets produced the same pattern of results to
those observed for the reanalysis of the Duff et al. (2005) data. The full description of the con-
firmatory factor analyses for all nine data sets is provided in the Supplemental Materials. In

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com by guest on June 2, 2016

10 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 

Table 4.  Unique Variance Estimates and Standard Errors for the Final CHC Model for the Duff,
Schoenberg, Scott, and Adams (2005) Reanalysis.

Residual

Test Total (SE) Unreliable (SE) Reliable (SE)

Wisconsin Card Sorting Test—Perseverative errors .70 (.06) .35 (.06)a .35 (.09)*
Controlled Oral Word Association Test .56 (.06) .26 (.04)b .30 (.07)*
Trail Making Test–Part A .54 (.06) .31 (.04)c .23 (.07)
Trail Making Test–Part B .27 (.05) .34 (.05)c −.07 (.07)
WMS-R Logical Memory—Immediate recall .39 (.05) .29 (.04)d .10 (.06)
WMS-R Logical Memory—Delayed recall .33 (.05) .25 (.04)d .08 (.06)
WMS-R Verbal Paired Associates—Immediate recall .38 (.05) .40 (.05)d −.02 (.07)
WMS-R Verbal Paired Associates—Delayed recall .42 (.05) .59 (.07)d −.17 (.08)
WMS-R Visual Reproduction—Immediate recall .39 (.05) .29 (.04)d .10 (.06)
WMS-R Visual Reproduction—Delayed recall .37 (.05) .31 (.04)d .06 (.07)
WMS-R Visual Paired Associates—Immediate recall .54 (.06) .42 (.05)d .12 (.08)
WMS-R Visual Paired Associates—Delayed recall .59 (.06) .42 (.05)d .17 (.08)
Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test—Immediate recall .35 (.05) .41 (.06)e −.06 (.08)
Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test—30-min delay .03 (.05) .28 (.04)e .02 (.07)
Rey–Osterrieth Complex Figure Test—Delayed recall .35 (.05) .38 (.06)e −.03 (.07)
WAIS-R Information .39 (.05) .19 (.03)f .20 (.06)
WAIS-R Digit Span—Forward .55 (.07) .34 (.06)f .21 (.09)
WAIS-R Digit Span—Backward .37 (.07) .34 (.06)f .03 (.09)
WAIS-R Vocabulary .25 (.06) .29 (.05)g −.04 (.08)
WAIS-R Arithmetic .57 (.05) .28 (.05)g .29 (.07)*
WAIS-R Comprehension .51 (.06) .49 (.07)g .02 (.09)
WAIS-R Similarities .48 (.05) .35 (.06)g .13 (.08)
WAIS-R Picture Completion .76 (.05) .35 (.06)g .41 (.08)*
WAIS-R Picture Arrangement .56 (.06) .26 (.04)g .30 (.07)*
WAIS-R Block Design .46 (.06) .16 (.03)g .30 (.07)*
WAIS-R Object Assembly .62 (.06) .29 (.05)g .33 (.08)*
WAIS-R Digit Symbol .37 (.05) .09 (.02)g .28 (.05)*

Note. CHC = Cattell–Horn–Carroll; WMS-R = Wechsler Memory Scale–Revised; WAIS-R = Wechsler Adult
Intelligence Scale–Revised; SE = standard error.
aPaolo, Axelrod, and Tröster (1996).
bRuff, Light, Parker, and Levin (1996).
cGoldstein and Watson (1989).
dWechsler (1987).
eMitrushina and Satz (1991).
fWechsler (1981).
gSnow, Tierney, Zorzitto, Fisher, and Reid (1989).

*Bonferroni corrected p < .05.

every case, after the initial CHC model was specified, only one modification was made across
any of the data sets, aside from dropping nonsignificant loadings that had negligible effects of
the fit indices (see Supplemental Materials). As described above, residuals from WAIS-R
Block Design and WAIS-R Object Assembly were allowed to correlate in the Duff et al. reanal-
ysis. The correlation was replicated in the reanalyses of Goldstein and Shelly’s (1972);
Salthouse, Fristoe, and Rhee’s (1996); and Bowden, Cook, Bardenhagen, Shores, and
Carstairs’s (2004) data sets.

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com by guest on June 2, 2016

Jewsbury et al. 11

The only uncertainty in classifying the measures according to CHC theory was due to the
tactile indicators in the Goldstein and Shelly (1972) data set. Little is known about the latent
structure of tactile tests (Decker, 2010; Stankov, Seizova-Calić, & Roberts, 2001). The modeling
of the tactile indicators was necessarily partly exploratory, where two alternate models were used
to represent the tactile tests in the reanalysis of Goldstein and Shelly’s data set. While the results
supported a left–right (or nondominant–dominant) dichotomy, further research is necessary to
confirm and clarify whether this apparent dichotomy is replicable and goes beyond tactile tests
such as applying to psychomotor tests.
As shown in Table 3, all CHC models fit excellently according to established cutoff criteria
for approximate fit statistics (Hu & Bentler, 1999). A highly significant loss of fit was observed
in all cases where the CHC model was simplified by merging the most highly correlated factors
(see Supplemental Materials). In all studies where an executive function factor could be specified
alongside the CHC models, the model was inadmissible. Even when the executive function factor
was specified independently from the CHC factors, in all cases the resulting model had a non-
positive definite latent covariance matrix associated with the executive function factor. This sug-
gests that the executive function factor was a linear function of the CHC factors and statistically
redundant. Similarly, in these studies the putative executive function tests did not have signifi-
cantly greater unique variance than nonexecutive function tests (see Supplemental Materials).
Together, these results suggest that there is no distinct general executive function factor and that
the putative executive function indicators do not individually measure specific executive func-
tions separate from CHC constructs.

Discussion
In all reanalyses, the CHC model fit excellently and in line with the widely adopted, conservative
fit guidelines described by Hu and Bentler (1999) and critiqued by Marsh et al. (2004). The find-
ing that CHC model fit well across all data sets, considering that the data sets shared many tests
in common that were modeled exactly the same for each data set, provides good evidence that the
CHC model is an excellent fitting model that is replicable and consistent across diverse tests and
populations. In particular, the data sets together provided replicated evidence for the CHC con-
struct validity for many of the most popular neuropsychological tests and batteries (Rabin, Barr,
& Burton, 2005). Furthermore, the CHC construct validity was supported across a range of clini-
cally relevant populations, including patients referred for neuropsychological evaluation, com-
munity, elderly, and at-risk for Alzheimer’s disease populations (see Table 3). Finally, the CHC
model was found to apply equally well to traditional instruments such as the WAIS and putative
executive function measures that are commonly believed to measure constructs beyond the CHC
constructs.
For every data set, the CHC model could not be reduced to fewer factors without significant
loss of fit. This finding has several implications. First, cognitive ability could not be reduced to a
single latent variable, thus showing the superiority of multiple-factor models of cognitive ability
over a single-factor model of general intelligence (Schneider & Newman, 2015). Second, the
results further support the CHC broad factors as distinct, well-supported constructs and the supe-
riority of theory-based confirmatory factor analysis for the selection of the number of factors
over exploratory methods (Keith, Caemmerer, & Reynolds, 2016). Finally, the results suggest
that merging and collapsing across CHC broad factors to produce aggregated constructs such as
executive function is not empirically supported (Jewsbury et al., 2016).
This article was based on the best quality data sets from the first author’s unpublished PhD
dissertation that involved reanalysis of 31 published data sets (Jewsbury, unpublished). Based on

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com by guest on June 2, 2016

12 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 

Table 5.  Empirically Verified CHC Construct Validity of Popular Neuropsychological Tests.

Test Gc Gs Glr Gsm Gv Gf FW Gq Ga

Vocabulary X  
Similarities X X  
Comprehension X  
Information X  
Boston Naming Test X X  
Symbol Search X  
Trail Making Test–Part A X  
Trail Making Test–Part B X ? ?  
Digit Symbol X  
Stroop test X  
Porteus Maze Test X  
Coding X  
Visual Paired Associates I X  
Visual Paired Associates II X  
Verbal Paired Associates I X  
Verbal Paired Associates II X  
Logical Memory I X X  
Logical Memory II X X  
Auditory Verbal Learning Test— X  
Immediate trails
Auditory Verbal Learning Test— X  
Delayed trails
Letter–Number Sequencing X  
Digit Span—Forward X  
Digit Span—Backward X  
Digit Span (combined) X  
Visual Span X  
Block Design X  
Object Assembly X  
Picture Completion X X  
Picture Arrangement X X  
Visual Recall I X  
Visual Recall II X X  
Benton Visual Form Discrimination X  
Benton Judgment of Line Orientation X  
Rey–Osterrieth Complex Figure X  
Test—Copy
Rey–Osterrieth Complex Figure X  
Test—Delayed
Figural Memory X  
Matrix Reasoning X X  
Raven Progress Matrices X X  
Halstead Category Test X X  
Wisconsin Card Sort Test— ? X  
Perseverative errors
Controlled Oral Word Association X  
Test
Category Fluency X  

(continued)

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com by guest on June 2, 2016

Jewsbury et al. 13

Table 5. (continued)

Test Gc Gs Glr Gsm Gv Gf FW Gq Ga

Letter Fluency FAS X  
Arithmetic X  
Halstead Speed Sounds Perception X
Test
Seashore Rhythm Test X
Reitan–Heimburger Aphasia Test X X

Note. CHC = Cattell–Horn–Carroll; Gc = acquired knowledge or crystallized ability; Gs = processing speed;

Glr = long-term memory encoding and retrieval; Gsm = working memory; Gv = visuospatial ability; Gf = fluid
reasoning; FW = word fluency (see Jewsbury & Bowden, in press); Gq = quantitative ability; Ga = auditory ability;
X = empirically verified CHC classification; ? = a possible classification that has not been empirically verified or rejected.

the results of all 31 reanalyses, empirically verified CHC classification for the most popular clini-
cal cognitive tests is given in Table 5.

Generality of the CHC Model

Several of the reanalyses involved conventional intelligence measures with well-replicated and
uncontroversial construct validity (usually Wechsler scales) alongside clinical and neuropsycho-
logical measures. The finding that the clinical tests loaded on the same factors as the Wechsler
and other intelligence tests provides good evidence that the constructs measured by clinical and
intelligence tests are the same. This conclusion is made more relevant by the studies reviewed in
the introduction that show that CHC-consistent models of the Wechsler scales show measure-
ment invariance across age, language, gender, culture, and community versus clinical popula-
tions (see Table 2).
These results are consistent with previous research although the implications for theoretical
convergence and conceptual clarification of cognitive assessment in clinical populations had
received little attention to date. Larrabee (2000) reviewed the exploratory factor analyses in out-
patient samples of Leonberger, Nicks, Larrabee, and Goldfader (1992) and Larrabee and Curtiss
(1992, 1995) showing a common factor structure underlying WAIS-R, the Halstead–Reitan
Neuropsychological Battery, and other diverse neuropsychological tests, and noted that the factor
structure was consistent with Carroll’s (1993) taxonomy of cognitive abilities. Evidence to date
suggests that the Wechsler Intelligence Scales may have similar criterion-related validity in sam-
ples of people with brain disease as has been found for other comprehensive neuropsychological
batteries (e.g., Golden et al., 1981; Kane, Parsons, & Goldstein, 1985; Loring & Larrabee, 2006;
Sherer, Scott, Parsons, & Adams, 1994).
The finding that intelligence and clinical tests measure the same constructs has important
implications for test selection in clinical practice. Assuming similar nomothetic span (Whitely,
1983), tests for a given construct should be chosen on the basis of how reliable they are so as to
maximize diagnostic precision (Chapman & Chapman, 1983). Putative executive function mea-
sures that have limited reliability (Denckla, 1994; Rabbitt, 1997) should not be used over more
reliable tests that measure the same constructs.

Validity of Executive Function

The results of the reanalyses found that the executive function factor was redundant when the
CHC constructs were modeled, in each of the data sets examined. Indeed, the finding that the

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com by guest on June 2, 2016

14 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 

CHC model fit well in each data set provides evidence that there are no additional constructs
measured by commonly used clinical tests examined in the present study, over and above the
CHC broad factors. The examination of unique variance provided a direct test of the hypothesis
that the unexplained variance is greater for executive as opposed to nonexecutive tests. The
results failed to support the hypothesis that there is more unique variance in putative executive
tests. Furthermore, the size of the estimated unique variances suggests that there is limited capac-
ity for putative executive function tests to have additional predictive and diagnostic utility above
what is attributable to the common factors in the CHC model.
The putative executive function tests were distributed across the CHC constructs such as Gs,
Gsm, Gv, and Gf. In other words, tests commonly grouped under the executive function rubric do
not load on the same construct. This finding of heterogeneous construct loadings has two impor-
tant implications. First, the results suggest that there is no unitary executive function construct
underlying all executive function tests, consistent with arguments by Parkin (1998) based on
neuropsychological evidence. Executive function should not be referred to as a separate domain
of cognition on the same level as broad CHC constructs such as processing speed (Gs) and visuo-
spatial abilities (Gv). Averaging or combining various executive function test scores potentially
leads to results that confound cognitive constructs. Therefore, systematic reviews and meta-anal-
yses should not group tests under the executive function rubric. Rather the CHC taxonomy may
be more useful for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (Loughman, Bowden, & D’Souza,
2014). Second, the results suggest that equating executive function with Gf, as has been advo-
cated (e.g., Blair, 2006; Decker, Hill, & Dean, 2007), may be misleading, as not all executive
function tests are Gf tests.

Current Status of the CHC Model

The CHC model is incomplete and evolving (McGrew, 2009). Some aspects of the factor struc-
ture of cognitive ability tests remain uncertain. For example, the classification of tactile and
kinesthetic abilities as broad constructs and their associated narrow structure is unclear (Decker,
2010; Stankov et al., 2001). Another example is the classificaiton of memory abilities, where
recent evidence suggests encoding and retrieval are better considered distinct abilities as opposed
to combining encoding and retrieval as Glr (Jewsbury & Bowden, in press). It is expected that as
more comprehensive and detailed analyses are conducted, the CHC model will develop into an
even more robust and comprehensive description of the structure of diagnostic cognitive tests.
Nevertheless, even in its current incomplete state, the CHC model has broad utility and is strongly
empirically supported. Much theoretical refinement of cognitive assessment may be facilitated if
the CHC model were to be adopted as the default model in any new investigation of individual
differences in cognition. Such a strategy would improve consistency of methods in the field of
clinical diagnostic assessment and facilitate establishment of a general theoretical paradigm of
individual differences.
The introduction of a table of “neurocognitive domains” to the DSM-5 illustrates the need for
a generally accepted and empirically supported taxonomy of cognitive abilities. Presently, most
authoritative texts have their own idiosyncratic cognitive taxonomy that appear to have been
derived from clinical consensus and perhaps only loosely from comprehensive empirical studies
(e.g., APA, 2013; Lezak et al., 2004; E. Strauss et al., 2006). Clearly, a unified, empirical taxon-
omy is preferred for consistent, evidence-based assessment. Neurocognitive “domains” such as
language, memory, and attention can sometimes be interpreted as compatible with the CHC
model due to semantic overlap of these domains with the CHC constructs. However, model deri-
vation should be based on rigorous, consistent criteria, including confirmatory factor analysis
(M. E. Strauss & Smith, 2009).

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com by guest on June 2, 2016

Jewsbury et al. 15

Adoption of the CHC model as the basic taxonomy of cognitive abilities in both clinical and
nonclinical populations would allow for more contentious issues to be properly evaluated. A
common view is that studies of nonclinical or mixed clinical populations may obscure cognitive
differences specific to a certain clinical condition or set of conditions (e.g., Delis, Jacobson,
Bondi, Hamilton, & Salmon, 2003). However, an empirically based and well-supported factor
model does not deny the possibility of condition-specific dimensions of cognition but instead
would allow the issues to be evaluated directly with the methods of measurement invariance
(Meredith, 1993).

Conclusion
Analysis of a representative sample of the best available relevant data sets revealed that the same
cognitive constructs that are reflected in test scores in community and educational samples
appear to underlie individual differences captured by neuropsychological tests, including in vari-
ous clinically relevant populations. The present results suggest that the CHC model of cognitive
abilities is an empirically grounded taxonomy for the evaluation of construct validity of diagnos-
tic cognitive tests and provides a basic theoretical paradigm for clinical cognitive assessment.
Finally, to paraphrase an anonymous reviewer, the results provide evidence for a common tax-
onomy of cognitive abilities that enables greater consistency in the meaning and interpretation of
test results across test batteries and practitioners alike.

Acknowledgments
The authors thank the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive criticism and suggestions.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Supplemental Material
The supplementary material is available at http://jpa.sagepub.com/supplemental

References
Ackerman, P. L., & Lohman, D. F. (2006). Individual differences in cognitive functions. In P. A. Alexander
& P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 139-161). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Alvarez, J. A., & Emory, E. (2006). Executive function and the frontal lobes: A meta-analytic review.
Neuropsychology Review, 16, 17-42. doi:10.1007/s11065-006-9002-x
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.).
Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.
Barch, D. M. (2005). The cognitive neuroscience of schizophrenia. Annual Review of Psychology, 1, 321-
353. doi:10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.1.102803.143959
Blair, C. (2006). How similar are fluid cognition and general intelligence? A developmental neuroscience
perspective on fluid cognition as an aspect of human cognitive ability. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
29, 109-125. doi:10.1017/S0140525X06009034
Bowden, S. C. (2013). Theoretical convergence in assessment of cognition. Journal of Psychoeducational
Assessment, 31, 148-156. doi:10.1177/0734282913478035

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com by guest on June 2, 2016

16 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 

Bowden, S. C., Cook, M. J., Bardenhagen, F. J., Shores, E. A., & Carstairs, J. R. (2004). Measurement invari-
ance of core cognitive abilities in heterogeneous neurological and community samples. Intelligence,
32, 363-389. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2004.05.002
Bowden, S. C., Gregg, N., Bandalos, D., Davis, M., Coleman, C., Holdnack, J. A., & Weiss, L. G.
(2008). Latent mean and covariance differences with measurement equivalence in college stu-
dents with developmental difficulties versus the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–III/Wechsler
Memory Scale–III normative sample. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68, 621-642.
doi:10.1177/0013164407310126
Bowden, S. C., Lange, R. T., Weiss, L. G., & Saklofske, D. H. (2008). Invariance of the measurement model
underlying the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–III in the United States and Canada. Education and
Psychological Measurement, 68, 1024-1040. doi:10.1177/0013164408318769
Bowden, S. C., Lissner, D., McCarthy, K. A. L., Weiss, L. G., & Holdnack, J. A. (2007). Metric and struc-
tural equivalence of core cognitive abilities measured with the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–III in
the United States and Australia. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 29, 768-780.
doi:10.1080/13803390601028027
Bowden, S. C., Ritter, A. J., Carstairs, J. R., Shores, E. A., Pead, S., Greeley, J. D., & Clifford, C. C. (2001).
Factorial invariance for combined Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Revised and Wechsler Memory
Scale–Revised scores in a sample of clients with alcohol dependency. The Clinical Neuropsychologist,
15, 69-80. doi:10.1076/clin.15.1.69.1910
Bowden, S. C., Saklofske, D. H., & Weiss, L. G. (2011). Augmenting the core battery with supplementary
subtests: Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–IV measurement invariance across the United States and
Canada. Assessment, 18, 133-140. doi:10.1177/1073191110381717
Bowden, S. C., Weiss, L. G., Holdnack, J. A., Bardenhagen, F. J., & Cook, M. J. (2008). Equivalence of a
measurement model of cognitive abilities in U.S. standardization and Australian neuroscience samples.
Assessment, 15, 132-144. doi:10.1177/1073191107309345
Bowden, S. C., Weiss, L. G., Holdnack, J. A., & Lloyd, D. (2006). Age-related invariance of abilities
measured with the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–III. Psychological Assessment, 18, 334-339.
doi:10.1037/1040-3590.18.3.334
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford.
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Chapman, J. P., & Chapman, L. J. (1983). Reliability and the discrimination of normal and pathological
groups. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 171, 658-661. doi:10.1097/00005053-198311000-
00003
Chaytor, N., & Schmitter-Edgecombe, M. (2003). The ecological validity of neuropsychological tests:
A review of the literature on everyday cognitive skills. Neuropsychology Review, 13, 181-197.
doi:10.1023/B:NERV.0000009483.91468.fb
Chen, H., Keith, T., Chen, Y., & Chang, B. (2009). What does the WISC-IV measure? Validation of the
scoring and CHC-based interpretative approaches. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 54,
85-108.
Chen, H., & Zhu, J. (2008). Factor invariance between genders of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for
Children–Fourth Edition. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 260-266. doi:10.1016/j.
paid.2008.04.008
Chen, H., & Zhu, J. (2012). Measurement invariance of WISC-IV across normative and clinical samples.
Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 161-166. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.10.006
Decker, S. L. (2010). Tactile measures in the structure of intelligence. Canadian Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 64, 53-59. doi:10.1037/a0015845
Decker, S. L., Hill, S. K., & Dean, R. S. (2007). Evidence of construct similarity in executive func-
tions and fluid reasoning abilities. International Journal of Neuroscience, 117, 735-748.
doi:10.1080/00207450600910085
Delis, D. C., Jacobson, M., Bondi, M. W., Hamilton, J. M., & Salmon, D. P. (2003). The myth of test-
ing construct validity using factor analysis or correlations with normal or mixed clinical populations:
Lessons from memory assessment. Journal of International Neuropsychological Society, 9, 936-946.
doi:10.1017/S1355617703960139

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com by guest on June 2, 2016

Jewsbury et al. 17

Denckla, M. B. (1994). Measurement of executive function. In G. R. Lyon (Ed.), Frames of reference for
the assessment of learning disabilities: New views on measurement issues (pp. 117-142). Baltimore,
MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135-168. doi:10.1146/
annurev-psych-113011-143750
Dickinson, D., Goldberg, T. E., Gold, J. M., Elvevåg, B., & Weinberger, D. R. (2011). Cognitive fac-
tor structure and invariance in people with schizophrenia, their unaffected siblings, and controls.
Schizophrenia Bulletin, 37, 1157-1167. doi:10.1093/schbul/sbq018
Dickinson, D., Ragland, J. D., Calkins, M. E., Gold, J. M., & Gur, R. C. (2006). A comparison of cog-
nitive structure in schizophrenia patients and healthy controls using confirmatory factor analysis.
Schizophrenia Research, 85, 20-29. doi:10.1016/j.schres.2006.03.003
Dodrill, C. B. (1997). Myths of neuropsychology. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 11, 1-17. doi:10.1080/
13854049708407025
Dodrill, C. B. (1999). Myths of neuropsychology: Further considerations. The Clinical Neuropsychologist,
13, 562-572. doi:10.1076/1385-4046(199911)13:04;1-Y;FT562
Dowling, N. M., Hermann, B., La Rue, A., & Sager, M. A. (2010). Latent structure and factorial invariance
of a neuropsychological test battery for the study of preclinical Alzheimer’s disease. Neuropsychology,
24, 742-756. doi:10.1037/a0020176
Duff, K., Schoenberg, M. R., Scott, J. G., & Adams, R. L. (2005). The relationship between executive
functioning and verbal and visual learning and memory. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 20,
111-122. doi:10.1016/j.acn.2004.03.003
Elliott, C. D. (2007). Differential Ability Scales–II. San Antonio, TX: Pearson.
Flanagan, D. P., McGrew, K. S., & Ortiz, S. O. (2000). The Wechsler Intelligence Scales and Gf-Gc theory:
A contemporary approach to interpretation. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Floyd, R. G., Bergeron, R., Hamilton, G., & Parra, G. R. (2010). How do executive functions fit with the
Cattell-Horn-Carroll model? Some evidence from a joint factor analysis of the Delis-Kaplan executive
function system and the Woodcock-Johnson III tests of cognitive abilities. Psychology in the Schools,
47, 721-738. doi:10.1002/pits.20500
Friedman, N. P., Miyake, A., Corley, R. P., Young, S. E., DeFries, J. C., & Hewitt, J. K. (2006). Not
all executive functions are related to intelligence. Psychological Science, 17, 172-179. doi:10.1111/
j.1467-9280.2006.01681.x
Gansler, D. A., Jerram, M. W., Vannorsdall, T. D., & Shretlen, D. J. (2011). Does the Iowa Gambling Task
measure executive function? Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 26, 706-717. doi:10.1093/arclin/
acr082
Genderson, M. R., Dickinson, D., Diaz-Asper, C. M., Egan, M. F., Weinberger, D. R., & Goldberg,
T. E. (2007). Factor analysis of neurocognitive tests in a large sample of schizophrenic pro-
bands, their siblings, and healthy controls. Schizophrenia Research, 94, 231-239. doi:10.1016/j.
schres.2006.12.031
Gladsjo, J. A., McAdams, L. A., Palmer, B. W., Moore, D. J., Jeste, D. V., & Heaton, R. K. (2004). A six-
factor model of cognition in schizophrenia and related psychotic disorders: Relationships with clinical
symptoms and functional capacity. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 30, 739-754.
Golden, C. J., Kane, R., Jerry, S., Moses, J. A., Cardellino, J. P., Templeton, R., . . . Graber, B.
(1981). Relationship of the Halstead-Reitan Neuropsychological Battery to the Luria-Nebraska
Neuropsychological Battery. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 410-417.
doi:10.1037/0022-006X.49.3.410
Goldstein, G., & Shelly, C. H. (1972). Statistical and normative studies of the Halstead Neuropsychological
Test Battery relevant to a neuropsychiatric hospital setting. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 34, 603-620.
doi:10.2466/pms.1972.34.2.603
Goldstein, G., & Watson, J. R. (1989). Test-retest reliability of the Halstead-Reitan battery and the
WAIS in a neuropsychiatric population. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 3, 265-272. doi:10.1080/
13854048908404088
Greenaway, M. C., Smith, G. E., Tangalos, E. G., Geda, Y. E., & Ivnik, R. J. (2009). Mayo older
Americans normative studies: Factor analysis of an expanded neuropsychological battery. The Clinical
Neuropsychologist, 23, 7-20. doi:10.1080/13854040801891686

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com by guest on June 2, 2016

18 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 

Horn, J. L. (1991). Measurement of intellectual capabilities: A review of theory. In K. S. McGrew, J.

K. Werder, & R. W. Woodcock (Eds.), WJ-R technical manual (pp. 197-232). Itasca, IL: Riverside
Publishing.
Horn, J. L., & McArdle, J. J. (1992). A practical and theoretical guide to measurement invariance in aging
research. Experimental Aging Research, 18, 117-144. doi:10.1080/03610739208253916
Hu, L.-t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analy-
sis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
Hunt, M. S. (2007). A joint confirmatory factor analysis of the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children,
second edition, and the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abilities, third edition, with preschool
children (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ball State University, Muncie, IN.
Jewsbury, P. A. (2014). Cattell-Horn-Carroll model in neuropsychology (Unpublished doctoral dissera-
tion). University of Melbourne, Melbourne.
Jewsbury, P. A., & Bowden, S. C. (in press). Construct Validity of Fluency and Implications for the Factorial
Structure of Memory. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment.
Jewsbury, P. A., Bowden, S. C., & Strauss, M. E. (2016). Integrating the switching, inhibition, and updating
model of executive function with the Cattell-Horn-Carroll model. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General, 145, 220-245. doi:10.1037/xge0000119
Jurado, M. B., & Rosselli, M. (2007). The elusive nature of executive functions: A review of our current
understanding. Neuropsychological Review, 17, 213-233. doi:10.1007/s11065-007-9040-z
Kane, R. L., Parsons, O. A., & Goldstein, G. (1985). Statistical relationships and discriminative accuracy
of the Halstead-Reitan, Luria-Nebraska, and Wechsler IQ scores in the identification of brain damage.
Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 7, 211-223. doi:10.1080/01688638508401254
Kaufman, A. S. (2009). IQ testing 101. New York, NY: Springer.
Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2004). Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (2nd ed.). Circle
Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Keith, T. Z., Caemmerer, J. M., & Reynolds, M. R. (2016). Comparison of methods for factor extraction for
cognitive test-like data: Which overfactor, which underfactor? Intelligence, 54, 37-54.
Keith, T. Z., Fine, J., Taub, G., Reynolds, M., & Kranzler, J. (2006). Higher order, multi-sample, confir-
matory factor analysis of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fourth Edition: What does it
measure? School Psychology Review, 35, 108-127.
Keith, T. Z., Kranzler, J. H., & Flanagan, D. P. (2001). What does the Cognitive Assessment System (CAS)
measure? Joint confirmatory factor analysis of the CAS and the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive
Ability (3rd edition). School Psychology Review, 30, 89-119.
Keith, T. Z., & Reynolds, M. R. (2010). Cattell-Horn-Carroll abilities and cognitive tests: What we’ve
learned from 20 years of research. Psychological in the Schools, 47, 635-650. doi:10.1002/pits.20496
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Larrabee, G. J. (2000). Association between IQ and neuropsychological test performance: Commentary
on Tremont, Hoffman, Scott, and Adams (1998). The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 14, 139-145.
doi:10.1076/1385-4046(200002)14:1;1-8;FT139
Larrabee, G. J. (2003). Lessons on measuring construct validity: A commentary on Delis, Jacobson,
Bondi, Hamilton, and Salmon. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 9, 947-953.
doi:/10.1017/S1355617703960140
Larrabee, G. J., & Curtiss, G. (1992). Factor structure of an ability-focused neuropsychological bat-
tery [Abstract]. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 14, 17-123. doi:10.1080/
01688639208403061
Larrabee, G. J., & Curtiss, G. (1995). Construct validity of various verbal and visual memory tests. Journal
of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 17, 536-547. doi:10.1080/01688639508405144
Leeson, V. C., Robbins, T. W., Franklin, C., Harrison, M., Harrison, I., Ron, M. A., & Joyce, E. M. (2009).
Dissociation of long-term verbal memory and fronto-executive impairment in first-episode psychosis.
Psychological Medicine, 39, 1799-1808. doi:10.1017/S0033291709005935
Leonberger, F. T., Nicks, S. D., Larrabee, G. J., & Goldfader, P. R. (1992). Factor structure of the Wechsler
Memory Scale–Revised within a comprehensive neuropsychological battery. Neuropsychology, 6,
239-249. doi:10.1037/0894-4105.6.3.239

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com by guest on June 2, 2016

Jewsbury et al. 19

Lezak, M., Howieson, D. B., & Loring, D. W. (2004). Neuropsychological assessment (4th ed.). New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Loring, D. W., & Larrabee, G. J. (2006). Sensitivity of the Halstead and Wechsler Test Batteries to brain
damage: Evidence from Reitan’s original validation sample. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 20, 221-
229. doi:10.1080/13854040590947443
Loughman, A., Bowden, S. C., & D’Souza, W. (2014). Cognitive functioning in idiopathic generalised
epilepsies: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 43, 20-34.
doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.02.012
MacCallum, R. C., Roznowski, M., & Necowitz, L. B. (1992). Model modifications in covariance structure
analysis: The problem of capitalization on chance. Psychological bulletin, 111, 490.
Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules. Structural Equation Modeling, 11,
320-341. doi:10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2
McCabe, D. P., Roediger, H. L., McDaniel, M. A., Balota, D. A., & Hambrick, D. Z. (2010). The relation-
ship between working memory capacity and executive functioning: Evidence for a common executive
attention construct. Neuropsychology, 24, 222-243. doi:10.1037/a0017619
McGrew, K. S. (2005). The Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory of cognitive abilities. In D. P. Flanagan & P. L.
Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (2nd ed., pp. 136-
181). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
McGrew, K. S. (2009). CHC theory and the human cognitive abilities project: Standing on the shoulders of
the giants of psychometric intelligence research. Intelligence, 37, 1-10. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2008.08.004
Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58,
525-543. doi:10.1007/BF02294825
Meredith, W., & Teresi, J. A. (2006). An essay on measurement and factorial invariance. Medical Care, 44,
S69-S77. doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000245438.73837.89
Mitrushina, M., & Satz, P. (1991). Effect of repeated administration of a neuropsychological battery in the
elderly. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 47, 790-801. doi:10.1002/1097-4679(199111)47:6<790::AID-
JCLP2270470610>3.0.CO;2-C
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000). The
unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A
latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 49-100.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2010). Mplus user’s guide version 6. Los Angeles, CA: Author.
Newton, J. H., & McGrew, K. S. (2010). Introduction to the special issue: Current research in Cattell–Horn–
Carroll–based assessment. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 621-634. doi:10.1002/pits.20495
Ortiz, S. O. (2015). CHC theory of intelligence. In S. Goldstein, D. Princiotta, & J. A. Naglieri (Eds.),
Handbook of intelligence: Evolutionary theory, historical perspective, and current concepts (pp. 209-
228). New York, NY: Springer.
Paolo, A. M., Axelrod, B. N., & Tröster, A. I. (1996). Test-retest stability of the Wisconsin Card Sorting
Test. Assessment, 3, 137-143. doi:10.1177/107319119600300205
Parkin, A. J. (1998). The central executive does not exist. Journal of the International Neuropsychological
Society, 4, 518-522. doi:10.1017/S1355617798005128
Penadés, R., Catalán, R., Rubia, K., Andrés, S., Salamero, M., & Gastró, C. (2007). Impaired response
inhibition in obsessive compulsive disorder. European Psychiatry, 22, 404-410. doi:10.1016/j.
eurpsy.2006.05.001
Phelps, L., McGrew, K. S., Knopik, S. N., & Ford, L. (2005). The general (g), broad, and narrow CHC
stratum characteristics of the WJ III and WISC-III tests: A confirmatory cross-battery investigation.
School Psychology Quarterly, 20, 66-88. doi:10.1521/scpq.20.1.66.64191
Pontón, M. O., Gonzalez, J. J., Hernandez, I., Herrera, L., & Higareda, I. (2000). Factor analysis of the
neuropsychological screening battery for Hispanics (NeSBHIS). Applied Neuropsychology, 7, 32-39.
doi:10.1207/S15324826AN0701_5
Rabbitt, P. (1997). Introduction: Methodologies and models in the study of executive function. In P. Rabbitt
(Ed.), Methodology of frontal and executive function (pp. 1-38). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
Rabin, L. A., Barr, W. B., & Burton, L. A. (2005). Assessment practices of clinical neuropsychologists in
the United States and Canada: A survey of INS, NAN, and APA Division 40 members. Archives of
Clinical Neuropsychology, 20, 33-65. doi:10.1016/j.acn.2004.02.005

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com by guest on June 2, 2016

20 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 

Reynolds, M. R., Keith, T. Z., Fine, J. G., Fisher, M. E., & Low, J. A. (2007). Confirmatory factor struc-
ture of the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children: Consistency with Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory.
School Psychology Quarterly, 22, 511-539. doi:10.1037/1045-3830.22.4.511
Reynolds, M. R., Keith, T. Z., Flanagan, D. P., & Alfonso, V. C. (2013). A cross-battery, reference variable,
confirmatory factor analytic investigation of the CHC taxonomy. Journal of School Psychology, 51,
535-555. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2013.02.003
Roca, M., Parr, A., Thompson, R., Woolgar, A., Torralva, T., Antoun, N., . . . Duncan, J. (2010). Executive
function and fluid intelligence after frontal lobe lesions. Brain, 133, 234-247.
Roid, G. H. (2003). Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, fifth edition: Technical manual. Itasca, IL: Riverside
Publishing.
Royall, D. R., Lauterbach, E. C., Cummings, J. L., Reeve, A., Rummans, T. A., Kaufer, D. I., . . . Coffey,
C. E. (2002). Executive control function: A review of its promise and challenges for clinical research.
A report from the committee on research of the American Neuropsychiatric Association. The Journal
of Neuropsychiatry & Clinical Neurosciences, 14, 377-405. doi:10.1176/jnp.14.4.377
Ruff, R. M., Light, R. H., Parker, S. B., & Levin, H. S. (1996). Benton Controlled Oral Word Association
Test: Reliability and updated norms. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 11, 329-338. doi:10.1093/
arclin/11.4.329
Salthouse, T. A. (2005). Relations between cognitive abilities and measures of executive functioning.
Neuropsychology, 4, 532-545. doi:10.1037/0894-4105.19.4.532
Salthouse, T. A., Atkinson, T. M., & Berish, D. E. (2003). Executive functioning as a potential mediator
of age-related cognitive decline in normal adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132,
566-594. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.132.4.566
Salthouse, T. A., Fristoe, N., & Rhee, S. H. (1996). How localized are age-related effects on neuropsycho-
logical measures? Neuropsychology, 10, 272-285. doi:10.1037/0894-4105.10.2.272
Sanders, S., McIntosh, D. E., Dunham, M., Rothlisberg, B. A., & Finch, H. (2007). Joint confirmatory fac-
tor analysis of the Differential Ability Scales and the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abilities–
Third Edition. Psychology in the Schools, 44, 119-138. doi:10.1002/pits.20211
Schneider, W. J., & Flanagan, D. P. (2015). The relationship between theories of intelligence and intelligence
tests. In S. Goldstein, D. Princiotta, & J. A. Naglieri (Eds.), Handbook of intelligence: Evolutionary
theory, historical perspective, and current concepts (pp. 317-340). New York, NY: Springer.
Schneider, W. J., & McGrew, K. S. (2012). The Cattell–Horn–Carroll model of intelligence. In D. P.
Flanagan & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues
(3rd ed., pp. 99-144). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Schneider, W. J., & Newman, D. A. (2015). Intelligence is multidimensional: Theoretical review and impli-
cations of specific cognitive abilities. Human Resource Management Review, 25, 12-27.
Shallice, T. (1982). Specific impairments of planning. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of
London, Series B: Biological Sciences, 298, 199-209. doi:10.1098/rstb.1982.0082
Sherer, M., Scott, J. G., Parsons, O. A., & Adams, R. L. (1994). Relative sensitivity of the WAIS-R subtests
and selected HRNB measures to the effects of brain damage. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 9,
427-436. doi:10.1093/arclin/9.5.427
Siedlecki, K. L., Manly, J. J., Brickman, A. M., Schupf, N., Tang, M. X., & Stern, Y. (2010). Do neu-
ropsychological tests have the same meaning in Spanish speakers as they do in English speakers?
Neuropsychology, 24, 402-411. doi:10.1037/a0017515
Snow, W. G., Tierney, M. C., Zorzitto, M. L., Fisher, R. H., & Reid, D. (1989). WAIS-R test-retest reliabil-
ity in a normal elderly sample. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 11, 423-428.
doi:10.1080/01688638908400903
Spooner, D. M., & Pachana, N. A. (2006). Ecological validity in neuropsychological assessment: A case
for greater consideration in research with neurologically intact populations. Archives of Clinical
Neuropsychology, 21, 327-337. doi:10.1016/j.acn.2006.04.004
Stankov, L., Seizova-Calić, T., & Roberts, R. D. (2001). Tactile and kinesthetic perceptual processes
within the taxonomy of human cognitive abilities. Intelligence, 29, 1-29. doi:10.1016/S0160-
2896(00)00038-6
Strauss, E., Sherman, E. M., & Spreen, O. (2006). A compendium of neuropsychological tests: Administration,
norms, and commentary (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com by guest on June 2, 2016

 Jewsbury et al. 21

Strauss, M. E., & Smith, G. T. (2009). Construct validity: Advances in theory and methodology. Annual
Review of Clinical Psychology, 5, 1-25. doi:10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.032408.153639
Taub, G. E., & McGrew, K. S. (2004). A confirmatory factor analysis of Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory and
cross-age invariance of the Woodcock-Johnson tests of cognitive abilities III. School Psychology
Quarterly, 19, 72-87. doi:10.1521/scpq.19.1.72.29409
Tucker, L. R. (1958). An inter-battery method of factor analysis. Psychometrika, 23, 111-136. doi:10.1007/
BF02289009
Tuokko, H. A., Chou, P. H. B., Bowden, S. C., Simard, M., Ska, B., & Crossley, M. (2009). Partial measure-
ment equivalence of French and English versions of the Canadian Study of Health and Aging neuropsy-
chological battery. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 15, 416-425. doi:10.1017/
S1355617709090602
Tusing, M. E., & Ford, L. (2004). Examining preschool cognitive abilities using a CHC framework.
International Journal of Testing, 4, 91-114. doi:10.1207/s15327574ijt0402_1
Wechsler, D. (1981). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Revised. New York, NY: The Psychological
Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (1987). Wechsler Memory Scale–Revised. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (2003). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fourth Edition (WISC-IV). San Antonio,
TX: The Psychological Corporation.
Weiss, L. G., Keith, T. Z., Zhu, J., & Chen, H. (2013a). WAIS-IV and clinical validation of the four-
and five-factor interpretative approaches. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 31, 94-113.
doi:10.1177/0734282913478030
Weiss, L. G., Keith, T. Z., Zhu, J., & Chen, H. (2013b). WISC-IV and clinical validation of the four-
and five-factor interpretative approaches. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 31, 114-131.
doi:10.1177/0734282913478032
Whitely, S. E. (1983). Construct validity: Construct representation versus nomothetic span. Psychological
Bulletin, 93, 179-197. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.93.1.179
Widaman, K. F., & Reise, S. P. (1997). Exploring the measurement invariance of psychological instruments:
Applications in the substance use domain. In K. Bryant & M. Windle (Eds.), The science of prevention:
Methodological advances from alcohol and substance abuse research (pp. 281-324). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Woodcock, R. W. (1990). Theoretical foundations of the WJ-R measures of cognitive ability. Journal of
Psychoeducational Assessment, 8, 231-258. doi:10.1177/073428299000800303
Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson tests of achievement. Itasca,
IL: Riverside Publishing.

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com by guest on June 2, 2016

View publication stats