Individual and Developmental

Differences in Cognilive-proeessing
Components of Mental Ability

Daniel P. Keating and Bruee L. Bobbitt

In.stitute of Child Development, University of Minnesota

KEATING, DANIEL P., and BOBBITT, BRUCE L. Individual and Developmental Differences in
Cognitive-processing Components of Mental Ability. CHILD DEVELOPMENT, 1978, 49, 155-167.
Cognitive activity has been viewt-tl from a variety of rest'are.'li perspectives, hut there have been
few attempts to integrate these different perspectives theoretically or empirically in eirder to gain
a metre general picture eif human cognition. The 3 perspectives of eievelopmental psycheifogy,
exptirimental psychology, and differential psychology are used in this research in an attempt to
understane:! better the nature e>f mental ability. Specifically, we searched for dilTerences in basic
cognitive processing which conld he systematically related to either developmcntiif or individual
differences between the subjects. In 3 experiments (simple vs. che)ice reaction time, Petsner
letter identificatie)n, and Stemljerg memory scanning), v\e looked for interactions e)f experimental
condition with age e)r abifit)' (defined hy Raven's matrices score.s). Interactions with age were
found in the reaction time and letter identificatie)n studies and witfi al)ifity in letter identification
and memory scanning. Additional anafyses revealed that a suf)stantial amount eil test-score vari-
ance wa.s aeee)unted for hy the processing variables and that the interrelations of the processing
variables provided some evidence for a sequential model of ce)gnitive activity.

Two recurrent findings permeate the lit-
erature of developmental and differential psy-
chology: (1) older children do better on cogni-
tive task.s than younger children, and (2) indi-
vidual performance on A variety of such tasks
is likely to be positively correlated. These two
findings underlie the predictive success of
IQ-type tests, but they also challenge theorists
oí intellectual development to present "ex-
planations" whfch do more than recapitulate
these findings that older and brighter children
typically do better than younger and less
bright ehildren.
A major goal of research in cognitive de-
velopment thus should he to begin identifying
the sources of this pervasive variance in cog-
nitive performance. Several categories of"
sources of variance can be hypothesized.
First, there may be developmental or individ-
ual differences, or both, in the general pro-
cessing efficiency of the organism. Some indi-
viduals may simply process basic information
more rapidly and efficiently than other indi-
viduals. Second, differences may exist in the
strategies (or rules) which individuals posses.s
and can bring to bear in solving problems.
Third, there may also be difTerences in strat-
egy selection skills, sometimes called
metac'Ognitive activity. These categories are
presumably interdependent, and each
contributes some variance to performance dif-
ferences.
This research is eoncenied with the first
of these categories. If differences in basic
cognitive-processing efficiency exist, and if
these differences are systematically as-
sociated with differences in performance on
more complex cognitive tasks, then at least
some of the variance in mental ability is at-
tributable to these basic processing dif-
ferences. The goal of finding such differences
is a long-standing one in psychology (Hunt
1976). Using a rough application ofa distribu-
tive menioiy model. Hunt and his colleagues
(Hunt 1976,' Hunt, Freist, & Lunnehorg 1973;
Hunt, Lunneborg, & Lewis 1975) have

This research vv'as supported by a grant from the University of Minnesota Graduate School and
hy a Spencer Fellowship from the National Academy of Educatiein. We thank Tom Trabasso forhis
hefplnt comments on an earlier draft of this paper. Reprint recjuests should be addressed to
Daniel Keating at the Institute of Child Development, 51 East River Road, University of
Minne.sota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455,
\Chü(i Deiielopmenl, vns, 49, 155-167. © li>78 by the Society for Research in ChiUl Develoument, Inc.
0009-,1920/78/4901-0020$Û1.16]
156 Child Development
examined the relationship of some basic cog-
nitive processes to ability differences in col-
lege students. We are using a similar
paradigm here, with the addition of a devel-
opmental variable. Besides yielding a more
complete picture of the relationship between
these processes and mental ability, the addi-
tion of the developmental variable may be
critical if the contribution of basic processing
differences to complex cognitive performanee
varies as a function of development.
Two levels of ability, high and average,
were ineluded in this study. The ability selec-
tion variable was a composite score derived
from the Standard and Advanced Progressive
Matrices (Raven 1960, 1965). There are sev-
eral advantages in the use of Raven's matrices.
First, the problems are self-contained and do
not assess factors such as vocabulary knowl-
edge or general information. They are, thus,
clearer measures of problem-solving ability.
Second, scores on the matrices tend to corre-
late highly with the first common factor extract-
ed from a battery of ability tests and thus to
have a high "g" or gen eral-ability loading.
It should be emphasized that we are using
the scores as indicants of ability differences,
but the study is not a task analysis of the ma-
trices. It is important, however, to select basic
processing tasks which can be expected a
priori to have some relationship to the solu-
tion of matrices problems. The three process-
es which we examined were binary decision
(choice vs. simple reaction time), long-term
memory-code retrieval (Posner letter iden-
tification), and short-term memory efficiency
(Sternberg memory scanning). The back-
ground of each of these tasks is discussed
briefly below.
In the first experiment, we assessed the
subject's ability to make a binary decision
rapidly. We presented first a simple reaction
time task, that is, pushing a button when a
light comes on, and then a two-choice reaction
time task, that is, pushing one button for a red
light and another button for a green light. The
major difference between these two tasks
seems to be the additional problem in the lat-
ter of making one extra discrimination. If
there is an interaction of the two conditions
with either classification variable (age or abil-
ity), this indicates an efficiency difference at a
very basic level. Such a process seems to be
employed in solving the matrices, since the
relevance of a given feature must be de-
termined early in the process. One might not
expect, however, especially salient dif-
ferences from a process as basic as binary de-
cision.
A more directly relevant process is the re-
trieval of information from long-term memory,
since the kinds of possible relationships
among features must be assessed. This was
examined in the second experiment, adapted
from the research of Posner, Boies, Eichel-
man, and Taylor (1969). The difference be-
tween the two conditions in this experiment is
that in the first a decision on similarity is to be
made on the basis of the physical appearance
of two letters. In the second (name) condition,
however, the name of the letters must be re-
trieved before a similarity decision is possi-
ble. The hypothesis is that the name-sorting
condition will take longer as a function of the
retrieval process, although that is not the only
interpretation of the dinerence between the
conditions (Posner & Snyder 1975). If any of
the groups are differentially slowed under the
name-sorting condition (i.e., if there is an
interaction of condition and group), it is pos-
sible to interpret this as a difference in the
efficiency of long-term memory retrieval.
Another highly relevant process is
examined in the third experiment in this
study, and that is the efficiency of short-term
memory scanning. In the matrices problems,
one must hold in working memory a series of
patterns while determining their inter-
relationships. To examine this we used the
Stemberg (1966, 1969, 1975) paradigm which
varies memory set size and compares scan-
ning rates as a function of set size. Other re-
searchers have found ability differences in
memory scanning efficiency on single cate-
gory sets (Dugas & Kellas 1974; Harris &
Fleer 1974). The ability differences in these
studies were between normals and retardates,
however, and the issue of pathology is poten-
tially confounding. Among college .students,
Chiang and Atkinson (1976) report no re-
lationship between scanning efficiency and
SAT scores, but there is a range restriction in
their study which could obscure any such re-
lationship. Whether children have slower
scanning rates than adults is currently a con-
troversial issue. Hoving, Morin, and Konick
(1970) found no age differences in scanning
speed, and it has been believed that no such
differences exist (Stemberg 1975). Two more
recent studies, however, have shown rather
striking age differences in the search rate on
single-category lists (Herrmann & Landis
1977; Naus & Ornstein 1977). It should be
noted that all reported age and ability dif-

ferences have been in efficiency (i.e., slope of
reaction time against set size) and not in strat-
egy. All studies report evidence for a serial,
exhaustive search of the short-term memory
store. In the present study, tlic simultaneous
variation of age and ability (excluding
pathological populations) should help to re-
solve some ofthe complexities in the existing
literature.
The major goal of these three experi-
ments, then, was to discover whether reliable
individual differences in cognitive processing
exist in children and, if so, whether these dif-
ferences are systematically related to age and
ability. A second goal was to examine the re-
lationships among the processing variables for
construct-validity evidence for the experi-
mental tasks.
General Method
In this section, the general methodology
for all three experiments is outlined. The
specific procedures and detailed discussion of
the tasks are presented separately for each ex-
periment to allow easy c<miparison with the
results.
Subjects and design.—^The same 60 sub-
jects were used for all three experiments and
were drawn from a pool of 180 students irom
the Minneapolis area public schools. The final
sample of 60 consisted of 20 subjects each
from grades 3 (CA - 9.2), 7 (CA = 13.2), and
11 (CA = 17.3), Half ofthe subjects at each age
were of high mental ability, and half were of
average mental ability, as described below.
Half of each of these groups were male, and
half were female.
The ability groups at each age were de-
termined by a combination of performance on
Raven's (1960, 1965) Standard Progressive
Matrices (SPM) and Advanced Progressive
Matrices (APM). Both tests were used because
of the wide age range. Each subject in the
original pool of 180 was given the SPM in
class while school was in session. On the basis
of these scores, a group ofthe highest scorers
and the lowest scorers at each age were cho-
sen for the study. These chiidren were con-
tacted first by postcard and later by telephone
and asked to participate in the group tif exper-
iments. At the time ofthe experimental ses-
sion, each subject was administered the APM.
The final sample of 10 higher scorers and 10
lower scorers at each age was determined by
'Christine Richardson carried out this experiment tor her bachelor's honors thesis.
Keating and Bobbitt 157
averaging the within-group standard scores on
the SPM and APM. There were no overlap-
ping scores. Interpretation of available data
suggests the low groups were at about the
40-45 percentile range for their age, whereas
the high groups were in the 90-95 percentile
range. The low groups are more accurately
described as average in ability. For all three
experiments there were five subjects iu each
cell: three ages X two ability groups x two sex
groups. In addition, for each experiment there
were within-subject experimental levels.
Procedure.—The subjects who were
selected to participate in the study were
tested individually. At this session all of the
children were administered the APM and
were given the reaction time, name retrieval,
and memory scanning tasks. The order ot pre-
sentation of these tasks and the APM was
blocked within the 12 cells. The entire ses-
sion lasted between 90 and 180 min. Subjects
took frequent breaks between tasks to avoid
fatigue.
Experiment 1—Reaction Time: Simple
and Cboice*
Apparatus.—Three pieces of apparatus
were used in this experiment: a subject con-
sole, an electromechanical programming de-
vice, and a Beekman Universal Timer (Model
5230). The console consisted of two buttons
22 mm in diameter mounted 14 cm apart and a
piece of board at desk level. Located beyond
the buttons was a vertical board which had a
38-mm-diameter opaque disc positioned at
eye level approximately 50 cm from the sub-
ject. Through the use of filters, a light behind
the disc cast either a red or green light.
Procedure.—Each subject was tested
under simple reaction time (SRT) and
choice reaction time (CRT) conditions. The
SRT condition always preceded the CRT con-
dition. Each snbject was tested in a quiet
room with the lights out. Before testing began,
the experimenter showed each subject all of
the equipment and explained the apparatus.
In the SRT condition, the subject's task
was to push the right-hand button whenever
the disc was red. Subjects were seated with
the appropriate hand resting comfortably on
the buttou. Preferred hand was counterbal-
anced. Subjects were instructed to push the
button as fast as possible when the red light
came on. Reaction time was printed out to the
158 Child Development
nearest millisecond on tbe Beckman timer and
was recorded by tbe experimenter. After 10
practice trials, each subject was administered
one block of 42 experimental trials. Tbe trials
were separated by either 4-, 6-, or 8-sec inter-
vals wbicb were randomly ordered and pro-
grammed on tbe electromechanical device.
The interval was the time between the re-
sponse and the next occurrence of tbe light.
All 42 trials took place with no break.
In the CRT condition following the SRT
condition, the subject's task was to push tbe
button marked with green tape when a green
ligbt appeared and tbe button marked with
red tape when the red ligbt appeared. As be-
fore, preferred hand was counterbalanced.
Following 24 practice trials, each subject was
administered one block of 72 experimental
trials. The order of presentation was randomly
determined, and the intervals of 4, 6, or 8 see
occurred equally often and in random order.
Results.—In tbis experiment, tbe first
analysis examined the total number of errors
and their distribution across the subjeet and
experimental levels to determine the appro-
priateness of reaction time as tbe dependent
measure. In tbis study, errors could occur only
on tbe CRT condftion. Errors for each cell
ranged from 4% to 7%, which is within rea-
sonable limits. There was a significant age ef-
fect, F(2,48) = 4.82, p < .05. Inspection of cell
means sbows this to be due to a higher error
level (6%) in tbe middle age group, wbereas
the oldest and youngest groups are equal (4%)
in error rate. It is thus unHkely tbat errors in
CRT affected the outcomes significantly.
Tbe principal analysis for eacb experi-
ment was an ANOVA-mixed design witb 3
(age) X 2 (ability) x 2 (sex) between-subjeets
factors and the witbin-subject factor of exper-
imental level. In tbis case, there were two ex-
perimental levels, SRT and CRT. The major
interest was in the interactions of between-
subjeets factors witb experimental levels,
since such interaction constitutes evidence of
processing differences between subject
groups (Hunt et al. 1973; Hunt et al. 1975).
Ceiling or floor effects may have artifactually
created interactions, and an estimate of tbis
was attempted in each ease. We were less in-
terested in main effects of between-subjeets
levels, whicb indicate differences in overall
performance across experimental levels. A
main effect of experimental level indicated
that there was a difference in performance
under different conditions, wbich can be antic-
ipated in all cases.
Median reaction times for eacb subject in
eacb condition were calculated and used as
the dependent measure. Means and SDs of
reaction times for each age and ability group
on SRT and CRT are shown in table 1. In tbis
experiment, there were three significant main
effects: age,F(2,48) - 92.38, p < .001; ability,
F(l,48) = 7.30, p < .01; and experimental
level,F(l,48)>100,p < .00Mn each case the
means were in the expected direction with
older and brighter children faster overall and
SRT faster than CRT. There was no main ef-
fect for sex. Only one interaction was sig-
nificant, age X level, F(2,48) = 49.28, p < .001,
with younger children slowed differentially
more on CRT compared with older children.
Tbe ability x level interaction was in the ex-
pected direction, witb higher-ability children
differentially less affected by tbe CRT condi-
tion relative to SRT, but it was not significant,
F(l,48) - 2.81, p < .10. No otber interactions
were close to being significant. Since tbere
was no effect of sex or any interaction involv-
ing tbat variable, it was dropped for a second
ANOVA witb 3 (age) x 2 (ability) x 2 (level)
factors. The results were similar, except that
the slightly inereased power shows the mar-
ginal ability X level interaction more clearly,
F(l,54) - 2.90, p < .09.
In summary, tbere were individual dif-
ferences in tbe processing parameter of bi-
nary decision, and they were systematically
related to age and perbaps to ability. ,
Experiment 2—Name Retrieval from
Memory
Materials.—The task used in this experi-
ment was adapted from the work of Hunt et al.
(1975) and Posner et al. (1969). Two sets of
cards for sorting were constructed, one for tbe
pbysieal-sorting condition (PS) and one for tbe
name-sorting condition (NS). Tbe cards used
were ordinary 3 x 5-incb (7.7 X 12.8-cm)
file cards. Two "Quick Stick Rub On" letters
were placed on eacb card. Only the letters A
and B were used. In the PS condition, half of
tbe cards bad letters wbicb were physically
identical {AA, BB, aa, or bb), and the otber
half differed in any pbysical feature (e.g.,Aa,
Ba, aA). Tbe actual combinations used were
drawn randomly from the possible types of
letter combinations. In tbe NS condition, the
names of the two letters were the same on half
of the cards (e.g., Ao, BB, bB) and difíerent on
tbe other half (Afc, ba, etc.). As in the PS con-
dition, tbe actual pairs were selected at ran-
dom from the possible types of combinations.
 Keating and Bobbitt 159
TABLE 1
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR EACH AGE/ABILITY GROUP
IN ALL CONDITIONS OF THE T H R E E EXPERIMENTS

AGE 9 AGE 13 AGE 17

Average High Average High Average High

Ability Ability Ability Ability Ability Ability
EXPERIMENT M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
Reaction time :"
Simple 311 (35) 286 (43) 260 (42) 242 (30) 233 (21) 235 (33)
Two-choice,,, 729 689 (110) 520 (52) 468 (27) 467 (24) 430 (30)
Letter identifica-
tion sorting
time:^
Physical, 28,9 (5,9) 25,8 (4.3) 20.8 (2.2) 19.3 (1-8) 19.3 (3.5) 17.6 (2.4)
Name 36, (4,9) 29.9 (6.7) 26.2 (4.0) 22.2 (2.7) 23.6 (3.8) 19.3 (2.3)
3. Memory scan-
ning reac-
tion time:=.
Set size 1. . 1,160 (204) 980 (315) 748 (262) 560 (240) 475 (129) 439 (113)
Set size 3 . . 1,455 (284) 1,178 (476) 930 (310) 695 (209) 617 (121) 571 (130)
Set size 5. . 1,612 (277) 1,199 (362) 1,040 (315) 793 (218) 722 (158) 675 (164)
Slope«! 113 (50) 55 (50) 73 ( 37) 58 (28) 62 (24) 59 (30)
Intercept. . 1,070 (209) 955 (366) 687 (266) 508 (247) 419 (128) 385 (125)

» In milliseconds.
b In seconds.
" In mi 11 i seconds.
^ Slope and intercept are variables derived by plotting RT against set size and calculating the best fitting line for each subject.

The total deck in each condition consisted of
30 cards. The cards were all covered with
laminating film for protection. In addition to
these two decks, two practice decks were con-
structed. The first contained 30 laminated
blank cards. The second had 10 cards, half of
which had the letter X on them and half the
letter O.
Procedure.—All testing took place in a
quiet room with the subject seated next to the
experimenter. The experimenter explained
the nature of the task and had each subject sort
the blank deck three times, both for practice
and to get an estimate of ability to sort cards.
The subject was given the deek upside down
and was told to turn it over and sort the cards
into two piles as rapidly as possible. The ex-
perimenter began to time after the subject
turned the deck over and began to sort the
cards. This procedure was followed for each of
the subsequent decks, After the blank deck,
the practice deck consisting ofX's andO's was
sorted twice by each subject. Though these
trials were not timed, the experimenter
stressed speed and accuracy. None of the sub-
jects had problems learning the concept of
how to make the appropriate discrimination
aud sort the cards into the appropriate piles.
Following both practice decks, the exper-
imenter had the subject sort the PS and NS
decks six times each. As in Hunt et al. s (1975)
work, the PS deck always preceded the NS
deck. Before the subject sorted each deck, the
experimenter carefully explained how the
decks were to be sorted and showed each card
to the subject and asked him or her to indicate
which pile the card belonged in. Under each
condition, all subjects easily understood how
the cards were to be sorted aud did so with
ease. After each of the six sorts, the experi-
menter shuffled the deck thoroughly. The
time taken to sort each deck was recorded to
the nearest teuth of a second.
Results.—In this experiment only the la.st
four of the six trials of card sorting in each
condition were used in the data analysis. The
first two trials were considered as practice,
even though the subjects were unaware of
this. The median card-sorting time for each
condition for each subject was calculated and
used as the dependent measure.
The betweeu-subjects factors in the
ANOVA were the same as in the previous ex-
periment. The within-subject factor had two
levels, PS aud NS (physical sorting aud name
sorting). Means and SDs of sorting time for
each age and ability group are shown in table
1. All four main effects were significant in this
160 Child Development
study: age,F(2,48) = 51.25, p < .001; ability,
F(l,48) - 15.99, p < ,001; sex,F(l,48) = 8.18,
p <.OO1; and level,F(l,48)> 100,p <.001.As
expected, older and higher-ability subjects
were faster overall in card sorting, and the NS
condititjn took longer than the PS condition.
There was an unexpeeted sex difference, with
girls sorting faster overall than boys. As noted
below, sex did not interact with experimental
level, and thus the sex difference is irrelevant
to this analysis. There was a significant ag^ x
level interaction, F(2,48) - 4.07, p < .05, and a
significant ability x fevel interaction, F( 1,48)
= 12.63, p < .001. There were nt) other sig-
nificant interactions in the ANOVA. The sig-
nificant interactions indicated that the older
and brighter children were less affected by
the added demands of the NS ceindition than
were younger and lower-ability children.
It should be noted that the interpretation
of the difference between these two experi-
mental conditions is not as clear-cut as in ex-
periment 1. Posner and Snyder (1975) suggest
two components may be involved: one, the
level of informatitjn available ft)r the re-
sponse, and the other, an advantage of an acti-
vated pathway. The difference between con-
ditions clearly involves a difference in
cognitive-processing efficiency, however, and
alst) involves accessing verbal or name codes.
In summary, these findings indicate that dif-
ferences among children in this processing
variable are systematically related to age and
to psychometric ability differences.
Experiment 3—Memory Scanning
Apparatus.—The apparatus for this ex-
periment consisted of a subject console lo-
cated next to the console used in experiment
1. The timer and programming device were
the same as used in that experiment as well.
The console contained a rear projection
screen, 45.5 cm wide and 30 cm high, ptjsi-
tioned at eye level approximately 50 cm from
the .subject's eye. Located next to the screen
was an amplifier which emitted a high-
pitched tone and which was used to signal the
onset of the memory slide and the probe slide.
In front of the base of the screen were two
buttons 12 cm in diameter with 14 cm be-
tween their centers. The buttons were labeled
yes and no. For half of the subjects, the
preferred hand was used for the yes response,
and for half, the preferred hand was used for
the no response. A Kodak 700 carousel posi-
tioned behind the screen was used for the
presentation of the stimuli.
Procedure.—A simultaneous-presentation
varied-.set procedure was used, based on the
Stemberg (1966, 1969) paradigm, with digits
used as stimuli. In this procedure the order of
the digits within each memory set varied from
trial to trial. The memory sets were either one,
three, or five digits in length and were ran-
domly selected subsets of the digits 0 through
9, Slides were constructed for both the mem-
ory set and the probes.
The subjects sat facing the screen with
their hands resting on the response buttons.
The room lights were on for this task because
the slides were highly illuminated by the pro-
jector. The trials were signaled by the high-
pitched tone generated by the amplifier. Im-
mediately after the tone went off, a memory-
set slide consisting of one, tliree, or five digits
appeared on the screen and remained visible
for 4 sec. After another 4 sec in which the
stimulus was off, the tone again sounded,
warning the .subject that the probe was about
to appear. The subject's task once the probe
was prttjected on the screen was to indicate as
quickly as possible by pushing the appro-
priate button whether or not it had been a
member of the memory set.
A total of 90 trials was presented to each
subject in three blocks of 30 trials each, In half
of the trials the probe was a member of the
memory set, and in half it was not. In addition,
each of" the five serial positions was probed
equally often. For the trials in which the
probe was not a member of the set, it was
selected randomly from the set of possibilities
after the memory set had been constructed.
The order of all 90 trials across all three trial
blocks was the same for all subjects. Before
the experimental trials were run, the last of
the three trial blocks was used as practice.
During these 30 trials, the experimenter em-
phasized accuracy and speeei. Rest periods
were taken between trial blocks for all sub-
jects.
Results.—In this study we first analyzed
response errors to determine the appropriate-
ness of reaction time (RT) as the dependent
variable. The overall error rate was about 4%,
which is acceptable. An ANOVA of errors of 3
(age) X 2 (sex) x 2 (ahility) revealed no sig-
nificant effects, indicating that alf subjects in
each group performed at the same level of ac-
curacy. A second preliminary analysis in-
vestigated the possible effects of practice by
an ANOVA of 3 (age) x 2 (sex) x 3 {trial
block). There was no significant effect for trial
block or for any interactions of trial block with

other variables. At least within this experi-
ment, subjects did not benefit differentially
from practice on the task during the data-
collection period.
The median RT for correct responses was
computed separately for yes and no responses
at each set size for each subject. There was no
main effect for yes and no responses, and it
did not interact with other variables. In
further analyses, median RTs were computed
for all correct responses combined. In this
ANOVA, significant main effects were found
for age, F(2,48) - 41.91, p < .001; ability,
F(l,48) - 8.89,p < .001; and set size,F(2,96) >
100, p < .001. More interesting is the only
significant interaction of set size with ability,
F(2,96) = 3.65, p < .05. These results are
shown in figure 1, in which mean RTs are plot-
ted as a function of set size for each of the age
and ability groups.
1600'
1400'
1200'
1000'
< 800
600
cr
400
1 3
SET SIZE
FIG. I,—Mean reaction times, in milliseconds, for each age/ability group as a function of
memory set size.
Keating and Bobhitt 161
From the information presented in figure
1, slope and [/-intercept data were derived and
analyzed in a separate ANOVA. The equation
y = Ax + B can be used to generate artificial
data points for each subject. In this study, the
data points from each .subject's equation com-
pared to the actual data yielded a correlation
greater than ,99, accounting for over 98% of
the variance in the actual data, and justified in
analysis of the slope and (/-intercept. In the
slope analysis, the effect of ability, F(l,48) =
3,63, p < .05, was the only significant finding.
The age X ability interaction, however, ap-
proached significance, F(2,48) = 2.82, p < ,07,
and this can be seen in the plot of the mean
slope of each age/ability group in figure 2. It is
clear that the high-ability groups are function-
ing near the adult level as early as 9 years old,
about 55-60 msec, but the average ability
groups achieve that level between ages 13 and
17. Unlike the slope, the y-intercept was only
9 . AVERAGE
O 9 , HIGH
1 3 . AVERAGE
O 13. HIGH
^^--"'"' _ „ > » 1 7 , AAVERAGE
VER
. HIGH
5
162 Child Development
marginally related to ability but strongly re-
lated to age, F(2,48) = 35.60, p < .OOL See
table 1 for means and SDs of RTs within set
size and of the slope and intercept for each age
and ability group.
Three interesting conclusions can be
drawn from these data. First, the linear re-
lationship between RT and set size indicates
that subjects in all groups were executing a
serial search for the probe item. The lack of
effects for type of response and serial position
leads to the conclusion that search was also
exhaustive. The finding that subjects at eacb
age/ability group utilized a serial and exhaus-
tive search is consonant with earlier findings
for single-category memory sets (Dugas &
Kellas 1974; Harris & Fleer 1974; Hoving,
Morin, & Konick 1970).
The major infiuence of development ap'
pears to be in the encoding for and the re-
sponding to the probe stimulus in light of the
large decrease in the y-intercept with age. Our
finding that the slope did not difïer with age
confiicts with the findings of Herrmann and
Landis (1977) and Naus and Omstein (1977).
The lack of consensus in these various studies
is puzzling and could very well be due to task
differences. Herrmann and Landis {1977), for
example, used a fixed-set procedure rather
than the varied-set procedure that was used in
the p r e s e n t study. • '••"''• - • ' ' '
The third and most interesting finding is

120

(113)

no

100

90

80

70

60

(55)
50

13 17
AGE
FIG. 2.—Mean slopes of reaction time on memory set size for the two ability groups as a function oiage

that tbe age X ability interaction in the slope
approached significance. This result suggests
that ability differences in basic processing
might become less potent with increasing age
as more powerful and general processing
strategies are acquired.
Tbere are now a number of studies whicb
demonstrate tbat the central process of mem-
ory scanning is clearly related to ability. Wbat
is not so clear is why this is true. The one
study tbat investigated rebearsal processes in
memory scanning (McCauley, Kellas, Dugas,
& DeVellis 1976) using ebildren as subjects
found tbat covert rebearsal aided the high- but
not the low-ability subjects. Future research
should be devoted to utilizing designs tbat
borrow from the McCauley et al. (1976) study
and the present one for tbe assessment of the
possible processes involved in both the age
and ability differences in memory scanning.
Individual Differenee Analysis of Pro-
eessing Components
One method of examining the construct
validity of experimental tasks such as those in
tbis study is to compare individual perfor-
mances on variables whicb are presumed to be
related tbeoretically. Cbiang and Atkinson
(1976) reported high correlations of similar
steps in memory scanning and visual searcb
(rstiipcN = .83, rmtertepts = .97) but insignificant
correlations for dissimilar steps.
We constructed a similar analvsis for
these data. The tasks are not as clearly related
as in the Chiang and Atkinson study (1976),
but tbe assignment of variables to different
steps in the processing secjuence seems rea-
sonable. We use a four-step secj|uence: (1) en-
coding, (2) operation, (3) binary decision, and
(4) response. Following previous work on the
Stemberg paradigm, we assigned slope to (2)
and intercept (INT) to (1 + 3 -f 4). The SRT is
(1 + 4), and the CRT is (1 + 3 -i- 4); hence,
C - SRT is (3). Finally, tbe NS eondition in
the Posner task is (1 -f- 2 -t- 3 + 4); the PS
condition is (1 + 3 -I- 4), and NS - PS is (2).
Tbis assignment allows, then, for a com-
parison of individual differences in process-
ing at various steps. If these differences are
systematic and are related by more tban a
general speed factor, tben variables whicb in-
volve the same steps should correlate more
highly across tasks than variables which bave
no steps in common. We eliminated vvithin-
task comparisons because of tbe biasing effect
of task-specific covariance. Four correlations
Keating and Bohhitt 163
fall into tbe former category, that is, similar
steps: CRT, PS; NS - PS, slope; CRT, INT;
INT, PS. There are eight correlations in the
latter category, shown in table 2. Tbe pattern
of correlations is reasonably clear. Tbe aver-
age intercorrelation for similar steps is .66 and
for dissimilar steps is .30. Three of four
similar-step correlations are highly significant
(p < .001), as are most (seven of eight) of the
dissimilar-step correlations (p < .05). The
magnitudes of the correlations are «juite differ-
ent, however. Tbe correlation for dissimilar
steps may best be considered as a general
speed factor, while the added covariance for
similar steps across tasks can be interpreted as
modest construct validity for tbe notion of dif-
ferent steps in tbe processing seijuence which
correlate across experimental tasks.
Tbere are two confounding variables
wbicb may be influencing these results. First,
tbe greater the number of total steps in any
pairwise comparison, the greater tbe likeli-
hood of a general speed factor biasing the re-
sults. The average number of steps per pair in
the four similar-step correlations isfive,and
the average for the eight dissimilar ones is
three. More carefully designed research to an-
swer tbis question should control for this po-
tentially biasing factor. Second, tbe NS - PS/
slope comparison is especially problematic.
Whereas slope is clearly isolated as a step (2)
separate from tbe otber three, NS - PS repre-
sents the difference between two kinds of op-
erations: internal comparison in PS versus re-
trieval plus internal comparison in NS. The
single deviant correlation of similar steps,
-.16 for males, may be attributable to this clis-
crepancy.
We also examined the pattern for males
and females separately, given the preliminary
findings of Cbiang anci Atkinson (1976). These
are shown also in table 2. We did notfindany
systematic sex differences, except tbat on tbe
dissimilar steps different correlations are sig-
nificant, but they all appear to be mostly simi-
lar in magnitude. It would stretch the data too
far to speculate about specific cotrelations.
Cognitive-proeessing Differences as
Components of Psychometric Per-
formance Differences
It is clear from the results reported above
tbat differences in cognitive-processing ef-
ficiency are systematically related to individ-
ual differences in psychometrically tested
ability. How mncb of the psychometric per-
Pi 0'='

aj I P,

, n •••••••. •

e .

PS D,,..^
c/1 o p

i s?

I rt ^

formance variance is accounted for by
cognitive-processing differences? To examine
this, we derived a central-processing parame-
ter frt)m each of the three experiments to pre-
dict, via multiple regression, the subjects'
scores on the psychometric tests. The process-
ing parameter was intended to represent the
specific process assessed by each task. For ex-
periment 1, we used CRT minus SRT {C —
SRT), a measure of binary-decision efficiency.
For experiment 2, we used name-sorting con-
dition time minus physical-sorting condition
time (NS — FS), a somewhat more ambiguous
measure of long-tenn memorv retrieval ef-
ficiency. For experiment 3, the slope of RT
against set size, which taps search efficiency
in sfiort-term memory, was the measnre nsed.
We constructed as the criterion variable a pro-
gressive matrices composite (FMC), which is
the mean of a snbject's within-sample stan-
dard scores on the SFM and the APM.
In the first stepwise analysis, using all
children (iV = 60), the multiple R = .72, which
indicates that 52% of the PMC variance was
acct)unted for by C - SRT, NS - PS, and of the variance in psychometric test perfor-
slope, the three central processing variables.
Age differences correlated with these three
variables acct)unt ft)r a significant pt)rtion of ficiency.
the total variance explained. This is clarified
by adding age as a fourth predictor variable, in
which case the multiple fi = .79, tmd 62% of Summary and Implieations of Find'-
PMC variance is accounted for. Age alone ac-
eonnts for 47% of the variance. Thus, 15% of
PMC variance is explained by the central-
processing variables with age partialed out, a
highly significant (;? < .001) amount of added
variance. Note alsei that with all four pre-
dictors, including age, the multiple R begins
to approach the reliability of the test.
Chiang and Atkinson (1976) reported a
sex difference in the relationship between
processing parameters and psychometric test
scores. We examined these regression equa-
titms separately for males and females. The
results are virtually indistinguishable for
males versus females, and most likely are
sampling fluctuations. Further data will be
needed to examine possible sex differences,
but from this sample no different relationships
of processing parameters to test scores are
evident.
In any regression equation which is not score level. Note also that these results were
cross-validated tin an independent sample,
chance works in favor ofa higher multiple fi.
To check for such inflation in this study, we
examined the results for each age group (N = low-verbal college students, but Chiang and
20) separately. The similarity of results across Atkinson (1976) found no relationship be-
Keating and Bobbitt 165
age groups is striking and emphasizes the
consistency of the link between the process-
ing variables and psychometric perfonnance.
For age groups 9, 13, and 17, the respective
multiple fi's are .59, .57, and .60, with FMC
variance accounted for equal to 34%, 32%, and
36%, respectively. In each case, NS - PS was
the most potent variable, accounting for a
greater portion of the PMC variance in suc-
cessive ages: 17%, 25%, and 32%. Since age is
already restricted, adding it as a fourth pre-
dictor variable does nt^t alter the regression
equations. It is also important to nt>te that the
central cognitive-processing variables con-
tribute different sources of covariance to the
prediction. The average intercorrelation of
these three variables across all subjects is .27.
There is always a danger in designs em-
plt)ying extreme groups that correlations will
vary in unpredictable ways. More extensive
replications of these estimates are thus
needed, but we draw confidence from the
consistency of these results. Taken together,
they suggest strongly that a significant portion
mance during these years is closely related to
differences in basic cognitive-processing ef-
ings
The major findings from these experi-
ments can be grouped into three categories:
(a) the identification of meaningful individual
and developmental differences in specific
cognitive-processing parameters; (b) the im-
proved construct validity of the processing
tasks by virtue of their interrelationships; and^
(c) the explanation of variance in the
psychometric test scores by the prt)cessing pa-
rameters. The theoretical and practical im-
plications for the findings in each category are
discussed briefly below.
Cognitive-processing differences.—The
most striking finding is the fact that individual
variation in these basic cognitive processes,
assessed by means of staneiard cognitive ex-
perimental methodology, is systematically re-
fated to other important differences between
the subjects, namely age and psychometric
obtained within the range of normal children
(i,e., nonpathological). Hunt et al. (1975) re-
ported differences on some tasks for high- and
166 Child Development
tween the processing parameters and SAT
scores of Stanford undergraduates. Recall also
that efforts early in the history of psychology
to align ba.sic sensory/motor processes with
test performance were unsuccessful and even-
tually abandoned.
What accounts for the clear pattern of
results in this study? Three important compo-
nents, which have not been brought together
in previous studies, can be identified as con-
tributing to these patterns. First, the experi-
mental tasks were more refined, drawing on
the vastly expanded research on adult human
cognition in recent years. Second, the range of
ability on the psychometric test scores was
broad enough and sufficiently sampled so that
such relationships would not fail to appear
because of insufficient variance. Third, the
developmental component revealed that the
relationships between processing parameters
and test scores may vary with age. In particu-
lar, the nearly significant age x abilit)' interac-
tion on slope suggests that the relationship of
either age or ability to cognitive processing
parameters may be obscured when they are
viewed independently. Future research, both
to replicate these findings and to explore re-
lated avenues, will need to bear iu mind the
requirement of representative subject sam-
pliug and the possible developmental inter-
actions. -•• • '• - ' -"
It is more difficult to draw a picture of
how the results from all three experiments
may be integrated. For simpler processes,
such as binary decision, encoding, and re-
sponding (C - SRT, (/-intercept), age effects
seem to dominate. On more complex process-
ing, such as internal comparison and retrieval
(slope, NS - PS), the ability interactions are
striking, A comprehensive interpretation of
age and ability differences in cognitive pro-
cessing would, however, be premature specu-
lation at this point.
Construct validity of the experimental
tasks.—In this study, only one pattern of
intercorrelations of the processing parameters
could be construed as supporting a notion of
human cognition as an integrated infor-
mation-processing system. That pattern,
higher correlations for variables tapping simi-
lar steps in the processing sequence than for
those tapping dissimilar steps, was the one we
found. Uniformly high correlations would in-
dicate a highly potent overall speed factor
which would contribute little to the validity of
a sequence model. Conversely, uniformly low
or zero correlations would indicate that indi-
vidual variance was entirely task specific (at
least for the tasks selected), again contributing
no useful information about the general cogni-
tive model.
Chiang and Atkinson's (1976) study is an
important one for the construct-validity ques-
tion. Their reported high correlations be-
tween slopes from memory and visual search,
and of intercepts, but low or zero correlations
between them, is the model for this analysis.
Future researchers should consider their
study and the present one when using more
than a single experiment on the same sample,
because information gathered from such re-
search will be useful in generating hypothe-
ses about the structure of human cognition.
Explanation of psychometric vari-
ance.—The consistency of the multiple-
regression equations predicting the PMC is
important because it emphasizes the possibil-
ity that cognitive experimental research may
be useful in understanding the nature of
widely used psychometric tests. The histori-
cally atheoretical nature of test constmction
has created a situation in which we know that
tests work, but with little understanding of the
reasons why they do. If, in fact, they work
(partly or principally) because they tap into
systematic cognitive-processing differences,
then we are in a much better position to ex-
plore general issues in complex cognitive per-
formance.
The exploratory nature of these results
should be clearly recognized, however. The
progressive matrices are good psychometric
instruments with high loadings on a "g" factor
of ability, but psychometric theory is far be-
yond a reliance on a single global index (Horn
1976; Nunnally 1967). Future research should
attempt to tie specific processing parameters
to different ability factors. The pattern of re-
lationships may be especially interesting,
since some processes may reasonably be ex-
pected to be associated more closely with cer-
tain psychometric abilities than others, Car-
roll's (1976) theoretical association of test fac-
tors with cognitive processes is an interesting
perspective for initiating empirical studies. In
the current phase of the research, negative re-
sults on the global PMC would be devastat-
ing, leading sensibly to abandonment of the
research strategy. On the other hand, the de-
cidedly positive results we obtained are en-
couraging, leading instead to pursuing the
strategy for purposes of replication and re-
finement of the relationships. . . , .. . ._,_

References
Carroll, J. B. Psychometric tests as cognitive ta.sks: a
new "structure of intellect." In L. B. Resnick
(Ed.), The nature of intelligence. Hillsdale,
N.J.: Eribaum, 1976.
Chiang, A., & Atkinson, R. C. Individual differences
and interrelationships among a select set of
cognitive skills. Memory and Cognition, 1976,
4 , 661-672.
Dugas, J. L., & Kellas, G. Encoding and retrieval
processes in normal children and retarded ado-
lescents, y^ur/irt/ of Experimental Child Psy-
chology, 1974, 17, 177-185.
Harris, G. J., & Fleer, R. E. High speed memory
scanning in mental retardates: evidence for a
central processing deficit. Journal of Experi-
mental Child Psychology, 1974, 17,452-459.
Hormiann, D. J.. & Landis, T. Y. Differences in the
search rate of children and adults in short-term
memory, journal of Experimental Child Psy-
chology, 1977. 2 3 , 151-161.
Horn, J. L. Human abilities; ¡i review of research
and theory in the early 1970s. In M. R.
Rosenzweig & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Annual
review of psychology. Vol. 27. Palo Alto, Caiif.;
Annual Reviews, 1976.
Hoving, K.; Morin. R.; àc Konick, D. Recognition
reac'tion time and size of the memory set: a de-
velopmental study. Psi/c/ionomic Science, 1970,
21,247-248.
Hunt, E. Varieties of cognitive power. In L. B. Res-
nick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence. Hills-
dale, N.J.: Eribaum, 1976.
Hunt, E.; Frost, N.; & Lunneborg, C. Individual
differences ineognition: a new approach to in-
Keating and Bobbitt 167
telligence. In G. Bower (Ed.), Advances in
learning and motivation. Vol. 7. New York:
Academic Press, 1973,
Hunt, E.; Lunneborg, C ; & Lewis, J. What does it
mean to be high verbal? Cognitive Psychology,
1975, 7, 194-227.
McCauley, C ; Kellas, G.; Dugas, J.; & DeVellis, R.
F. Effects of serial rehearsal training on mem-
ory se Arch. Journal of Educational Psychology,
1976,68,474-481.
Naus, M. J., & Ornstein, P. A. Developmental dif-
ferences in the memory search of categorized
lists. Developmental Psychology, 1977, 13,
60-68.
Nunnally, J. C. Psychometric theory. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1967.
Posner, M. I.; Boies, S. J.; Eichelman, W. H.; &
Taylor, R. L. Retention of visual and name
codes of single letters.Joumai of Experimental
Psychology, 1969, 79, 1-16. (Monograph)
Posner, M. I., & Snyder, C. R. R. Attention and cog-
nitive control. In R. L. Solso (Ed.), Information
processing and cognition. Hillsdale, N.J.:
Eribaum, 1975.
Raven, J. C. Guide to the Standard Progressive Ma-
trices. London: Lewis, 1960.
Raven, J. C. Advanced Progressive Matrices. Lon-
don: Lewis, 1965.
Stemberg, Si High-speed scanning in human mem-
ory. Science, 1966, 153, 652-654,
Stemberg, S. The discovery of stages: extension of
Donders' method. Acta Psychologica, 1969, 30,
276-315.
Stemberg, S. Memory scanning; new findings and
current controversies. Quarterly Journal of Ex-
perimental Psychology, 1975, 2 7 , 1-32.