Psychological Bulletin

1972, Vol. 77, No. 2, 129-143

THURSTONE'S PRIMARY MENTAL ABILITIES AND

STRUCTURE-OF-INTELLECT ABILITIES
J. P. GUILFORD i
University of Southern California

The major objective of the present study was to find in the factor-analytic
investigations of L. L. Thurstone some information concerning factorial in-
tellectual abilities that have unique places in the structure-of-intellect (SI)
model, and, more incidentally, to determine which SI abilities are represented
in Thurstone's published primary mental abilities (PMA) battery of tests.
Although a number of his factors can be cited as probable forecasts of SI
abilities, in only one or two instances was a Thurstone factor clearly repre-
sentative of a single SI ability, unconfounded with other abilities. This gen-
eral outcome was largely due to the fact that his analyzed batteries involved
too many different SI abilities for which the number and varieties of tests
were not adequate. In successive analyses, some of his factors tended to con-
verge in the direction of SI abilities, so that his published PMA tests represent
one SI ability each, with the exception of the Reasoning and Number tests.

The termination of a program of intensive
research on intellectual abilities or functions
in the Aptitudes Research Project (ARP) at
the University of Southern California seems
to be an occasion for a reexamination of
L. L. Thurstone's "primary mental abilities,"
which have been well known in the literature
for the past 30 years. There is much in com-
mon between his abilities and those issuing
from the ARP program, but there are also
numerous points of difference that it would
seem useful to point out. For those who em-
ploy the Thurstone primary mental abilities
(PMA) tests, either in research or in practical
contexts, the newer information arising from
deeper probing into the nature of human in-
telligence has much to offer by way of psy-
chological interpretations.
Although a thorough reexamination of other
investigations of intellectual abilities might be
in order, the historical importance of the
Thurstone analyses gives them first call for
consideration. In other words, this article is
not intended as a comprehensive review of
factor analyses of intellectual abilities. How-
ever, it mentions some of the more relevant
studies that have yielded significant informa-
tion that helps in the comparison of the
Thurstone and ARP factors or that served
as connecting links between them historically.
A few other possible connecting links have
1
Requests for reprints should be sent to J. P. Guil- the present writer developed the structure-of-
ford, P. 0. Box 1288, Beverly Hills, California 90213. intellect model, which became the ARP's
129
been neglected in order to keep the study
within reasonable length.
COMPARISONS OF THE Two APPROACHES TO
FACTOR ANALYSIS
Preparatory to the comparisons that fol-
low, it is important to have in mind certain
features of the methodology by which the
PMA and ARP abilities were investigated.
There were basic similarities but also some sig-
nificant differences. Let us note the similarities
first.
Some Similarities
In both research programs, as much as
possible, factor analysis was used as a hy-
pothesis-testing device. In planning a research
study, considerable effort was devoted to a
rational consideration of a domain of abilities,
with hypotheses proposed concerning abilities
to be expected in an area of functioning. The
supposed natures of those abilities suggested
the kinds of tasks needed in order to test
those hypotheses. Being one of the pioneers
in such research, Thurstone had few prior
findings to guide him toward hypothetical
factor abilities. On the other hand, the ARP
had the findings of Thurstone and others,
particularly those of the Army Air Forces
(AAF) research program (Guilford & Lacey,
1947). Furthermore, after some early analyses
130 J. P. GUILFORD
fruitful source of hypotheses during most of
its tenure.
Basically, the two methods of analysis were
the same. The foundation for both was
Thurstone's multiple-factor theory, which
calls for extracting from a matrix of inter-
correlations among tests a number of or-
thogonal factors, and a rotation of axes in
order to achieve meaningful, psychological
variables. Thurstone used his own centroid
method of extracting factors. The ARP
started its program with that method but
soon switched to the principal-axes technique,
which computers made possible. The differ-
ence is not an important one. Differences in
rotational procedures were important; they
are mentioned shortly.
Another important condition that was com-
mon to the two programs was the use of rela-
tively homogeneous groups of experimental
examinees or subjects. The homogeneity was
in terms of age and educational level, and
sometimes, also, sex membership. The im-
portance of homogeneity as an experimental
control cannot be overemphasized. As Kelley
(1928) pointed out, it is likely that many a
Spearman g that had been found in early
factor analyses was due to lack of homoge-
neity of the tested population. Many tests
correlate with age, education, or sex, which
makes them correlate with one another,
whereas with homogeneous groups they might
correlate zero or near zero. If a genuine psy-
chological g is present in the data, the mul-
tiple-factor methods of analysis should bring
it out. It is impossible to find a g of uni-
versal scope, as Spearman demanded, how-
ever, where so many of the intercorrelations
among tests of intellectual qualities are zero.
The present writer found that among several
thousand such coefficients, as many as 18%
could be regarded as zero (Guilford, 1964).
Some Differences
The really important differences between
Thurstone and ARP techniques were in the
methods of rotation. To mention a less critical
difference first, most of Thurstone's analyses
entailed oblique rotations of axes, whereas all
the ARP rotations were orthogonal. The
choice of orthogonal rotations in the latter
case was dictated by the belief that oblique
rotations are largely a function of particular
combinations of analyzed test variable, due
to incidental selections (Guilford & Zimmer-
man, 1963). Degrees of obliqueness are prone
to lack invariance as batteries of tests change
and as each factor is represented by a different
set of tests. Obliqueness is often to be at-
tributed to failures to construct tests that
provide good experimental controls. With
optimal controls, perhaps all factors should
approach mutual independence. Until we have
exerted all reasonable effort to control pre-
cisely what examinees have to do in order
to make good scores in tests, we cannot re-
ject the hypothesis of orthogonality. At any
rate, interpretations of the natures of fac-
torial abilities should not differ materially
whether rotations are orthogonal or oblique.
Experience seems to bear out this proposition.
A more critical difference in rotational
methods pertains to the basis for location of
axes in final solutions. Thurstone utilized
graphic methods of rotation, aiming at the
two objective criteria of positive manifold and
simple structure. The former should apply
when dealing with aptitudes, which are uni-
polar concepts. The latter carries the hidden
assumption that the tests that we create tend
to cluster along the lines of fundamental psy-
chological variables of individual differences.
Especially when tests are aimed at what are
thought to be relatively independent abilities,
there is evidently enough truth in this assump-
tion to make the principle roughly applicable.
It would certainly not be a safe assumption in
all cases. Experience shows that it is easier
to construct factorially complex tests than
factorially univocal tests. Accumulating ex-
perience has led the present writer to dis-
trust the simple-structure principle. Other
voices are being heard in the same vein
(Butler, 1969).
In the ARP program, the overriding con-
cern was to achieve invariance of psycho-
logical factors (see Guilford & Hoepfner,
1971). No factor proposed as a psychological
concept has much claim for attention unless
it can be replicated in places where it should
be found. The graphic rotations performed in
the early studies by the ARP observed psy-
chological meaning as a third important cri-
terion for rotations. When Cliff's method of
rotation to congruency of factor matrices ap-
peared on the scene (Cliff, 1966), it became
 MENTAL AND STRVCTVRE-OF-INTELLECT
the adopted procedure. All the earlier analyses
were then redone, using Cliff's method. In
applying the method, starting with the prin-
cipal-axes matrix, the investigators set up one
hypothetical factor matrix after another as
targets toward which to aim rotations until
a good fit and good replications were achieved.
It is recognized that such constraints pro-
duce better fits to theory than are probably
justified. But the procedure faces the fact
of life that the large degree of indeterminancy
incident to factor-analytic processes does not
justify blind faith in results obtained by any
known rigorous rotational operations. One
outcome has been of some interest. In general,
when good fits to theory and good invariance
are reached, simple structure of a kind is also
achieved. The truth is that several different
solutions, all with what looks like simple struc-
ture, are possible. There have been attempts
to achieve mathematical definitions of simple
structure, but rotations so as to reach any one
of them, such as in a varimax solution, may
lead the investigator seriously astray psycho-
logically (Guilford & Hoepfner, 1969). Even
in terms of mathematical definitions, the
simple-structure criterion is not to be fully
trusted.
Apart from the rotation problem, there was
an incidental feature of the Thurstone analy-
ses that endangered good solutions in some
places. This feature was his frequent use of
alternate forms of the same test in the same
analysis, for example, three reading tests,
three reasoning tests, or four numerical-opera-
tion tests. The outcome is harmless when such
tests generate by themselves a factor that can
be easily spotted as being actually a specific.
But the trouble is that they often carry other
tests along with them, which probably means
a confounding of the specific with something
else, and the other tests may be robbed of
what should be variances from other common
factors. The importance of this situation for
number factors is pointed out later.
One historical handicap that Thurstone suf-
fered was that at his time no one dreamed of
the very large number of intellectual abilities
such as have been found by the ARP.2 Ex-
pecting only a few primary mental abilities
2
The number of intellectual abilities now demon-
strated by factor analysis is approximately 100, with
more predicted by the SI model.
ABILITIES 131
CONTENTS
FIGURAL
SYMBOLIC
SEMANTIC
BEHAVIORAL
PRODUCTS
.TRANSFORMA-
TIONS
•IMPLICATIONS
OPERATIONS
EVALUATION
CONVERGENT
PRODUCTION
DIVERGENT
MEMORY
PRODUCTION
COGNITION
FIG. 1. The structure-of-intellect model.
and that each ability would have extensive
generality, Thurstone assembled batteries for
analysis with entirely too much variety among
the tests. The result was that many an SI
ability was represented by only one or two
tests. In ARP experience, in an exploratory
study it takes four or five tests aimed at a
hypothesized ability in order to ensure ade-
quate representation. In his first PMA analy-
sis, Thurstone probably had 28 SI abilities
represented, as suggested by current knowl-
edge of components of such tests. Eleven were
represented by one test each, 8 by two tests
each, and 9 by three or more tests. Thurstone
extracted and rotated 12 factors, of which he
interpreted 9, and felt reasonably sure of his
interpretations of less than that number. The
fact that other psychological factors were
latent in his data was demonstrated later by
Fruchter (1948) and Zimmerman (1953) in
reanalyses of those data.
STRUCTURE OF INTELLECT
Since the ubiquitous frame of reference for
what follows is the structure-of-intellect
model, for the benefit of readers less ac-
quainted with it, this very brief exposition on
it is provided.
Each SI ability is represented by a par-
ticular cell in a three-dimensional matrix (see
Figure 1) and is defined by its unique con-
junction of a kind of operation with a kind of
content and a kind of product. Each ability
is designated by a trigram. For example, CMU
132 /. P. GUILFORD
stands for cognition of semantic units, which
means awareness or understanding of ele-
mentary constructs, such as objects thought
about. CMU is most clearly assessed in in-
dividuals by means of a vocabulary test. An-
other example is MFI, which stands for mem-
ory for figural implications, and is best as-
sessed by paired-associates memorizing of
pairs of figures. The individual learns con-
nections between members of the pairs so that
one member comes to imply the other. EST
stands for evaluation of symbolic transforma-
tions, which means rendering judgments con-
cerning changes in information that is com-
monly in the form of letters and numbers.
This ability is known to apply in judging
whether one algebraic expression is correctly
transformed into another, as by factoring,
transposing, or substituting events.
It may have been noted that the first letter
of a trigram stands for the kind of operation,
the second for the kind of content, and the
third for the kind of product. In each case,
the letter is the initial of the category name
(D = divergent production, B = behavioral,
R = relation, and so on), except that N
stands for convergent production (C was pre-
empted by cognition), and M stands for se-
mantic (S was preempted by symbolic).
Meanings of the IS categories of the model
(5 operations, 4 contents, and 6 products)
should become clear from the discussions,
which include descriptions of their empirical
referents, the psychological tests. Space is not
taken to present formal definitions here. A
detailed treatment may be found in the
writer's book (Guilford, 1967).
THURSTONE FACTORS
We consider each of Thurstone's better-
known PMA factors that he reported during
the interval from 1938 to 1951. They include
what he called verbal, space, number, percep-
tion, memory, induction, deduction, word
fluency, and his two closure factors Cl and
C2. We look at his verbal factors first.
Verbal Factors
The verbal factors found in most of Thur-
stone's analyses would now be regarded as
verbal composites, each a confounding that
represented a number of semantic abilities.
For example, in his first PMA analysis (Thur-
stone, 1938a), the factor that he character-
ized as "verbal relations" was with loadings
of .38 or above for a variety of tests of types
whose dominant SI factors have been for
abilities other than CMU (cognition of se-
mantic units), in SI terminology. Three tests
should have represented CMC (cognition of
semantic classes).3 They were Reading I,
Reading II, and Word Grouping. Two tests
are now known to represent DMR (divergent
production of semantic relations)—Controlled
Association and Inventive Opposites. The lat-
ter also has some variance from NMR (con-
vergent production of semantic relations) be-
cause it restricts each item to only two re-
sponses, each with a given initial letter. The
divergent aspect probably conies from the
fact that alternative responses are to be
given. It was the presence of these two tests
that enabled Fruchter (1948) to find a factor
of associational fluency (DMR) in his re-
analysis of Thurstone's data. It also enabled
Zimmerman (1953) to report a similar factor
from the same data.
Representing other SI abilities were Verbal
Analogies (cognition of semantic relations,
CMR) and False Premises (evaluation of se-
mantic implications, EMI; and evaluation of
semantic relations, EMR). Only the two vo-
cabulary tests—-Vocabulary (Chicago) and
Vocabulary (Thorndike)—are of the kind
that commonly represents the best-known
verbal ability CMU, but in Thurstone's first
analysis they had even stronger loadings on
other factors. In later analyses, however, he
found his verbal factors narrowed more and
more to vocabulary and reading-comprehen-
sion tests, which others have found to repre-
sent faithfully SI ability CMU.
Space Factors
Thurstone (1938a) first described his space
factor as a "facility in spatial and visual
imagery [p. 80]." This definition seems to fit
the factor called "visualization" in the AAF
research (Guilford & Lacey, 1947) and finally
given the SI designation of CFT (cognition of
figural transformations). The AAF program
3
It is possible to make statements regarding the
probable SI abilities represented by Thurstone's tests
because some of the same tests or their alternate
forms have been analyzed by the ARP. Others are
similar to other ARP-analyzed tests.
 MENTAL AND STRVCTVRE-OF-INTELLECT ABILITIES 133

found repeatedly a second space factor later, hension in the AAF research), and Paper
called "spatial orientation," which was de- Puzzles. The latter is like the Minnesota
nned as an ability to comprehend arrange- Form Board test, which has a legitimate claim
ments of objects in visual space. Of the 13 to represent CFT.
tests loading .39 and above in Thurstone's The appearance of two different factors
first analysis, 5 would seem to represent CFT. both based strongly on tests representing CFT
Surface Development, Block Counting, and requires explanation. Thurstone's distinction
Form Board have been found to do this in between the two was in terms of movement of
later analyses by the ARP and others the entire object versus movement of parts
(Michael, Zimmerman, & Guilford, 1950). within the object. Because at least three of
Lozenges A and Lozenges B appear to fit the the tests for Si were sufficiently similar to be
current conception of CFT, which is the actually alternate forms of the same test, there
ability to imagine changes in visual objects, is much suspicion that Si is primarily a
such as movements, rotations, reversals, or specific component. Such tests should be ex-
rearrangements. Two tests in Thurstone's list pected to have significant loadings on S2 as
seem to represent SI ability CFS (cognition well as on S3, but in the oblique solution they
of figural systems), which was denned above have loadings of essentially zero on 82. In an
with the name of spatial orientation-—his orthogonal solution, the loadings of these
Flags and Cubes. Both of these tests came tests on 82 might be significant. The correla-
out on a factor identifiable as CFS in the tion reported between Si and 82 was only .38,
analysis by Michael et al. (1950). however, which throws some doubt on this
Not until much later did Thurstone come suggestion. There may be some actual differ-
to recognize more than one space factor, as ence between abilities to imagine transforma-
seen in his 1950 report, in an analysis de- tion of wholes versus of parts, but this find-
voted primarily to visual-space tests.4 In that ing of Thurstone's stands unique and needs
study he found what he regarded as four verification.
space factors. Factor Si he defined as the Thurstone's factor S8 in his 1950 analysis
"ability to visualize a rigid configuration when was represented by only two tests, but they
it is moved into different positions." The tests can qualify as tests of the SI ability CFS or
were Figures and Cards, in both of which the AAF spatial orientation. Thurstone did
the examinee (the subject) is to say whether not interpret this factor except to put it in
two simple figures having the same shape and the space category. Its leading test Cubes
containing holes could be showing the same has a history of loading on factors that rather
side or whether one would have to be turned clearly represent ability CFS (Michael et al.,
over. They are essentially two forms of the 1950, 1951). Lozenges A could also well have
same test and both would qualify for SI some relation to CFS. But both tests may
ability CFT. The test Reversals and Rota- also have some relations to CFT.
tions was described as being similar to Figures The AAF research found a factor called Sa
and Cards except that the pictures were of (not to be confused with Thurstone's S 2 ),
real, familiar objects, such as bananas or which it interpreted as kinesthetic in nature.
keys. This test should also qualify for CFT. It was common to Thurstone's test called
Factor S2 was defined as the "ability to Hands and his test Flags. In Hands, a large
visualize a configuration in which there is number of sketches of the human hand are
movement or displacement of the several parts shown, each with the hand in a different
of the configuration." Four of the six tests position. The subject is to say whether the
on it present histories of having significant picture represents a right or a left hand. In
loadings on factors for CFT—Mechanical Flags, the subjects is to say whether the
same side of the United States flag is showing
Comprehension, Mechanical Movements, Sur- in two paired views, with the flag rotated at
face Development (called Pattern Compre- different angles. Examiners administering these
* L. L. Thurstone. Some primary abilities in tests have observed that subjects often make
visual thinking. (Report No. 59) Psychometric Lab- at least minimal hand movements in solving
oratory, University of Chicago, 19SO. the items.
134 J. P. GUILFORD
In his 1950 analysis, Thurstone found a
factor K, with Hands leading on it and with
Bolts as its helpmate. In each item of the
latter, a bolt with a right-hand screw is par-
tially screwed into a block of wood that is
tilted in a certain position. The subject is to
say in which of the two directions the bolt
must be turned in order to drive it further into
the block. Thurstone also reported the ob-
served involvement of the subjects' hands,
which led him to conclude that the factor
"represents kinesthetic imagery."
It can be added that Thurstone also ana-
lyzed the same battery of space tests along
with additional tests thought to involve me-
chanical knowledge.5 So far as the space
factors were concerned, the results were es-
sentially the same as those in the 1950 analy-
sis.
Factors Named "Perceptual"
In his first 1938 analysis, Thurstone
(1938a) said of a factor that he called sim-
ply "perceptual" that it was a "facility in
perceiving detail that is embedded in ir-
relevant materials [p. 81]." His interpreta-
tion apparently rested very heavily upon the
one leading test, Identical Forms, which in
recent history has always helped to mark
factors for EFU (evaluation of figural units)
and which, following AAF terminology, has
most often marked a factor called "perceptual
speed." Identical Forms calls for judgments
of whether each of five similar figures is or is
not identical with a key figure, hence it should
logically represent EFU. But on the basis of
present knowledge, the other eight tests on
the factor in Thurstone's first analysis repre-
sents anything but EFU. Three tests represent
the verbal factor CMU—Vocabulary, Comple-
tion (a vocabulary test in completion form),
and Disarranged Sentences (given scrambled
words belonging to a sentence, the subject is
to read and comprehend the sentence). Two
tests, verbal Classification and Word Group-
ing, have been found by the ARP to represent
alike two other abilities, CMC and NMC
(convergent production of semantic classes).
One other test appears to be primarily for
CFR, cognition of figural relations (Pattern
6
L. L. Thurstone. An analysis of mechanical apti-
tude. (Report No. 62) Psychological Laboratory, Uni-
versity of Chicago, 1951.
Analogies, a figure-analogies test), another to
be primarily for CMR (Verbal Analogies),
and still another (Picture Recall) for MFU
(memory for figural units) or MMU (memory
for semantic units) or both, depending upon
whether the subject remembers appearances
of the pictures or what they represent in the
way of real objects.
The AAF psychologists had a decidedly
better basis for calling "perceptual speed" a
factor that coupled Thurstone's Identical
Forms with their own tests, Spatial Orienta-
tion I, Spatial Orientation II, and Speed of
Identification. The first of these three in-
volved comparing and judging pairs of aerial
photographs for identity, the second involved
matching aerial photographs with places on
a map of the terrain, and the third involved
matching identical airplanes. Although, as in
Thurstone's earlier analyses, some non-EFU
tests tended to go with the list on the AAF
factor, as other tests representing other abil-
ities in common with those "foreign" tests
were included in analyzed batteries, the re-
striction of the perceptual-speed factor to
EFU-type tests became more definite. Inci-
dentally, this kind of outcome is an example
of how tests without support from other tests
of their stronger common factors in an analysis
go hither and yon, depending in part upon
chance-inflated correlation coefficients. Such
tests of underrepresented factors often con-
fuse the picture in an analysis, as they did in
many of Thurstone's early studies.
The AAF name for its factor, perceptual
speed, was in recognition of the fact that its
tests comprised easy items that almost any-
one could do perfectly if he has the time. In
the ARP research, such a factor was fre-
quently found, marked usually by Thurstone's
Identical Forms and Part IV of the Guilford-
Zimmerman Aptitude Survey, entitled "Per-
ceptual Speed." In a recent investigation ° of
figural-evaluation abilities the question was
raised whether speed is a natural attribute of
the ability. After all, there is nothing about
an ability of EFU to suggest that speed is
important. To test this hypothesis, two new
0
K. I. Hoffman, J. P. Guilford, R. Hoepfner, and
W. J. Doherty. A factor analysis of figural-cogni-
tion and figural-evaluation abilities. (Report No. 40)
Psychological Laboratory, University of Southern
California, 1968.
 MENTAL AND STRUCTURE-OF-INTELLECT
tests were designed, one almost a power test
(Judgment of Size) and one a partially
speeded test with items varying in difficulty
(Judging Figural Combinations). In Judg-
ment of Size, a central geometric form is to be
compared with four surrounding figures of
the same shape, with the subject to say which
one is identical in size. In Judging Figural
Combinations, the subject is to say which of
five outline squares contains the same small
geometric figures as a standard set, where
there are variations of shapes, sizes, and num-
bers of small figures. These tests came out
with Thurstone's Identical Forms on a factor,
thus linking the factor with history. Thurstone
was wrong in concluding that a feature of
the ability is "perceiving detail that is em-
bedded in irrelevant material [Thurstone,
1938a, p. 81]," and the AAF psychologists
were wrong in attributing a speed feature to
the ability.
Historically, there has been another issue
in progenitors for EFU. In a special analysis
of his perceptual ability, Thurstone (1938b)
found a factor identified as "perceptual" but
having no tests loaded significantly on it that
would now be placed in the figural-content
category. There were three tests that should
represent the parallel ability ESU (evaluation
of symbolic units)—Identical Numbers, Iden-
tical Names, and Scattered Xs. All three are
obviously in the symbolic category; matching
things for identity is an evaluative task; and
the products are units. Interestingly enough,
two other tests on Thurstone's factor are of
the kind that are now known to measure the
ability EMU (evaluation of semantic units),
another parallel variable. Concrete Associa-
tion asks the subject to mark words in a list
that are clearly associated with a key word.
Verbal Enumeration asks the subject to check
all words in a list that belong to a stated class.
Abstract Classification was of a similar nature;
another EMU test. Thus, what Thurstone
identified as his perceptual factor in his sec-
ond analysis was apparently a confounding
of ESU and EMU. The operation and product
were the same as for EFU, but the contents
were different.
Similar confoundings occurred in subsequent
Thurstone analyses, once including tests for
all three abilities, EFU, ESU, and EMU, and
once for only two of them (Thurstone, 1940;
ABILITIES 135
Thurstone & Thurstone, 1941). The 1941
analysis brought four CSU (cognition of sym-
bolic units) tests into the picture with two
EFU tests and one EMU test on the same
factor. The four CSU tests were Mirror Read-
ing, Word Puzzles, Incomplete Words, and
Identical Numbers. Mirror Reading required
the subject to recognize a word as it would
be seen in a mirror. Word Puzzles was an
anagrams test, the words being presented with
scrambled order of letters. The two EFU tests
were Identical Pictures, and Faces, both re-
quiring matching identical objects. Verbal
enumeration was described as an EMU test
earlier.
Bechtoldt (1947), a student of Thurstone,
seems to have succeeded in separating the
three SI evaluation-of-units factors in his
analysis. His factor C, which he interpreted
as "speed of recognition of predetermined
symbols in contexts of discrete distractors
[French, 1951, p. 651," by its conjunction of
tests justifies identification with ESU. Note
his reference to symbols in his statement. In
three tests, the subject was to cross out speci-
fied letters of numbers within mixed sets of
other letters and numbers.
His factor A was described as "fluency of
associational recognition with perceptual ma-
terials [French, 1951, p. 65]." The qualifica-
tion "perceptual" is misleading, for the con-
tent of the tests is definitely semantic, not
figural. The strongest test for the factor was
Word Checking, which asked the subject to
check words that belong to a specified class,
for instance, things growing and smaller than
a football. Other tests were Unfinished House
("check listed words associated with an un-
finished house") and Verbal Enumeration,
which was previously described. Still other
pertinent tests were Opposites ("in a long list,
mark every pair of words that includes op-
posites"). Size Comparison ("in pairs of
named objects, mark the larger of the two"),
and Boys' Names ("in a list of words, check
names of boys"). All these tests logically
qualify for ability EMU.
Bechtoldt's factor Y was interpreted by him
as "facility in organizing simultaneous visual
configurations under distraction of continued
act [French, 1951, p. 65]." Only the "visual
configuration" component of this description
really fits the picture of the factor. Thurstone's
136 J. P. GU1LFORD
Identical Forms helped to identify the factor,
but with a barely significant loading. Stronger
tests included Shape Constancy (involving
matching and equating pairs of objects for
shape), Picture Squares (involving finding a
pair of identical figures in a matrix of 16
figures), and Two-Hand Coordination, which
seems to have no claim to being a representa-
tive of EFU, in spite of its having the highest
loading of .48.
Numerical Factors
In his extensive review of factor analyses
involving intellectual abilities, French (1951)
remarked that the Thurstone factor of num-
ber or numerical facility was among the best
established. There would have been much
consensus on this proposition. Placement of
this factor in the SI model proved to be
something of a problem, however, and the
reason eventually became apparent. The his-
tory of number factors is unique.
In Thurstone's (1938a) first analysis the
list of tests representing his number factor
looks very good. There were four tests repre-
senting the four basic number operations
leading the list: Multiplication, Addition,
Subtraction, and Division, with loadings of
.81 to .62. Experience has shown that such
high loadings should be suspected. The other
four tests in the list all involved numerical
operations to some extent, and their loadings
were .62 to .38. They were Number Code,
Numerical Judgment, Tabular Completion,
and Arithmetic Reasoning, all of which in-
volved some numerical operations but also
other processes that should have shown up in
terms of significant loadings on other factors.
The first placement of the numerical-fa-
cility factor in the SI model by the writer
was for ability NSI (convergent production
of symbolic implications), for the reason that
a certain operation applied to two numbers
implies another number and no other, as each
individual has learned and as he should pro-
duce (Guilford, 1959). Two independent find-
ings, however, called for reconsideration. Both
Davis (1956) and de Mille (1962) found that
a number-operation test correlated in such a
manner with the Digit Symbol test of the
Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale, and
with others, as to emerge with it on a factor
that could be identified as MSI (memory for
symbolic implications). It is apparent that
the Digit Symbol test involves newly learned
connections between digits and symbols and
that the goodness of learning and memory is
an important asset in gaining speed in that
test. Numerical-operations tests reflect not
recent and controlled learning but older and
much less controlled learning. Confirmation
of the relation of numerical-operation tests to
MSI was forthcoming in a new analysis in a
study of mathematical aptitude (Guilford,
Hoepfner, & Petersen, 1965). But in the same
analysis there was also a relation to NSI, thus
also supporting the original placement of
numerical-facility factors in the SI model.
There is further information that throws
light on the original Thurstone number factor
and most of such factors found later. That is
to the effect that they have been heavily con-
founded with a number-operation specific. It
has usually happened that, as in Thurstone's
analysis, more than one numerical-operation
test has been used. In the AAF analyses, two
number tests were included, and the loadings
were near .80. In other words, they were
specific-inflated. Tenopyr 7 made a special
study of symbolic-memory factors, in which
she introduced several new tests designed for
MSI along with four numerical-operation
tests. The result was a very strong number-
specific factor featuring the number tests,
only one of which (Addition) had also a sig-
nificant loading on the common factor MSI.
In a reanalysis of the same battery,8 only one
numerical-operation score (a composite from
four number tests) was included, so as to
avoid involvement with a number-specific
component. The score went on MSI, but with
a loading of only .35. The natural conclusion
is that the number factors of historical note
have been largely specific variables, unique to
tests requiring operations with numbers, with
possible confoundings with certain factors
representing SI abilities, depending upon the
composition of the test battery. The common-
factor affiliations for numerical-operation tests
7
M. L. Tenopyr. A factor analytic study of sym-
bolic-memory abilities. Unpublished doctoral disserta-
tion, University of Southern California, 1966.
8
M. L. Tenopyr, J. P. Guilford, and R. Hoepfner.
A factor analysis of symbolic-memory abilities. (Re-
port No. 38) Psychological Laboratory, University of
Southern California, 1966.
 MENTAL AND STRUCTURE-OF-INTELLECT
seem to be with MSI and NSI, although
weakly in both instances. Numerical-opera-
tion tests therefore seem to measure mostly
specific number-operation skills.
Memory Factors
Thurstone's (1938a) first analysis reported
a memory factor, which he apparently re-
garded as possibly only one of a family of
abilities, for he suggested possible factorial
differences to be expected between incidental
and intentional memory, rote and logical
memory, and memory within different sense
modalities. The three leading tests on his
memory factor were all of the paired-associ-
ates variety—Number-Number, Word-Num-
ber, and Initials (associated with family
names). It will be recognized that the con-
tent is symbolic, and what is learned is in
the nature of implications. The dominant SI
ability is therefore MSI, an ability that was
just discussed in connection with the number
factors. There were two other tests loaded on
the factor, Figure Recognition and Word
Recognition, which probably represent abilities
MFU and MMU (the latter assuming that
word meanings were stored), but possibly
also MSU (memory for symbolic units), if
appearances of words in terms of letter con-
tent were stored. Paired-associates tests in
recall form, which he used, can also involve
memory for units, so MSU could have been a
confounding component in his memory factor.
From the 1940 analysis, a clear-cut factor,
interpretable as MSI, was reported, with two
good tests on it. They were Initials and Word-
Number, two MSI tests from the first analysis.
In the 1941 analysis, the memory factor was
represented by three tests for three different
SI memory abilities. Figure Recognition un-
doubtedly stood for MFU, Digit Span for
MSS (memory for symbolic systems), and
First Names (another paired-associates test)
for MSI. The cohesion of memory tests as a
distinct group is some evidence, but not very
comforting evidence, for the uniqueness of the
memory operation category. Recent analyses
in the ARP program have also revealed that
differentiation of abilities by factor analysis
within the memory category is not always
easy. This difficulty is attributed to lack of
experimental control of what content and
product are cognized and then stored when
ABILITIES 137
the subject memorizes his items of informa-
tion, more than to actual correlations among
memory abilities.
In his 19 SO analysis, Thurstone was con-
cerned mainly with spatial abilities, hence he
featured visual-figural tests. Two of them—
Memory for Pictures and Memory for Geo-
metric Designs—generated a common factor
that he regarded as being distinct from his
earlier memory factor. Both tests were in
recognition form and were designed so that
verbalizing should not help examinees very
much. The SI ability suggested is MFU. One
surprise was that a test called Visual Memory
did not also go on the factor. The name of
that test is misleading, however. Two frames
for exposure, each with an irregular figure on
it, were flashed on a screen with a very short
blank interval between them (time interval
not stated), with the subject to say whether
or not the second is identical with the first.
Despite the condition of successive exposure
of the two figures to be compared, the test
probably represents EFU and should not be
expected to go for MFU. The nature of the
factor on which Visual Memory did go, with
one other test, cannot be interpreted, but it
could have been for EFU. This is suggested
by the need for comparison and judgment of
two figures as to identity, although exposed
in quick succession rather than simultaneously
as in the usual EFU tests.
Induction Factors
In different analyses, Thurstone found what
he called an "induction" factor that rather
clearly corresponds to SI ability CSS (cogni-
tion of symbolic systems), although in each
case one or two extra tests of other SI
abilities went along, apparently for lack of
any better place to go. The clearly CSS tests
were Number Series, Letter Series, Marks,
Number Patterns, Tabular Completion, Secret
Writing (using a letter code), and Letter
Grouping. All these tests involve seeing some
kind of systematic arrangement of symbols
in order to solve problems, and their relations
to CSS have been repeatedly demonstrated
by the ARP.
In the opinion of the writer, both the terms
"reasoning" and "induction" are much too
broad as labels for the ability CSS, which is
only one of a great number, all of which
138 J. P. GUILFORD
could be defended as reasoning abilities and
many of them as induction abilities. It has
been proposed elsewhere (Guilford, 1960) that
the term "induction" could be applied to most
of the cognition abilities, of which there are
24 in the present SI model. It could apply to
all; an explanation follows.
If induction is regarded as abstracting or
extracting general information from particu-
lars, the term can be defended as applying to
all of the six products of information. Units
have attributes by which they are identified,
and those attributes become known through
repeated encounters with objects that possess
them. Classes, relations, systems, and trans-
formations are transposable entities. As such,
they are derived through encounters with dif-
ferent individual cases that embody them. Im-
plications come about through replicated en-
counters, to which the law of frequency in
learning applies. By such reasoning, the con-
cept of induction can be replaced with the
operation category of cognition, with many
advantages. The disposal of "deduction" is
executed next.
Deduction Factors
On both occasions in which Thurstone rec-
ognized deductive factors (1938a, 1940), two
syllogistic tests were significant markers, al-
beit along with some nonsyllogistic tests in
both cases. In the first case, the syllogistic
tests were False Premises and Syllogisms. The
two were perhaps sufficiently different to be
accepted as two different tests rather than
two forms of the same test. The main differ-
ence was the use of nonsensical premises in
the first case, such as, "All truants are gold-
fish," and realistic premises in the second,
such as, "Jones is older than Brown." In the
second analysis, the two syllogistic tests
loaded on the deduction factor were known
as Reasoning II and Reasoning III. The dif-
ference was said to be in the complexity of
the syllogisms in the two cases. The nature
of the complexity was not stated. Both were
true-false tests.
In ARP experience, true-false and multiple-
choice syllogistic tests rather consistently
shared their common-factor variances between
EMI (evaluation of semantic implications)
and EMR (evaluation of semantic relations).
The operation is evaluation rather than con-
vergent production because the subject need
not draw his own conclusions; they are given
to him. A conclusion is an implication from
the premises, therefore we should readily ac-
cept the involvement of EMI. The involve-
ment of EMR must arise from the fact that
premises and conclusions often state rela-
tions. Relations are obvious in statements
such as "Jones is older than Brown," the rela-
tion being "older than." Relations are not so
obvious in other kinds of propositions, but
subjects possibly process the statements as
such.
It will probably be agreed that "deduction"
should apply to the act of drawing conclu-
sions, not the act of judging them. It should
take a test in completion form, requiring the
subject to produce his own conclusions, to
justify the label of "deduction." The ARP
has used such tests, and they go mainly on
the factor for NMI, a convergent-production
ability (Merrifield, Guilford, & Christensen,
1962). There is sometimes a little EMI vari-
ance, enough to be significant, which should
mean that the subject's evaluations of his
own conclusions offer some help in making a
good score.
As a process, deduction should be assigned
logically to convergent production not evalua-
tion. The writer has proposed elsewhere (Guil-
ford, 1960) that the four convergent-produc-
tion-of-implications abilities, NFI, NSI, NMI,
and NBI, which are concerned with implica-
tions, be regarded as deductive abilities. But
he also proposed that the four abilities con-
cerned with convergent production of rela-
tions—NFR, NSR, NMR, and NBR—also
involve deducing conclusions, in thinking by
analogy. Further thinking about the matter
leads to the suggestion that all the convergent-
production abilities should be accepted as
deductive, in which case that operation could
well replace completely "deduction" as a
process. Then distinct varieties would be
recognized, and usefully so. Both the concepts
of "induction" and "deduction" have hereto-
fore been very ambiguous. The cognition and
convergent-production operations are not only
unambiguously defined, they also have em-
pirical referents in the form of tasks that
involve them.
 MENTAL AND STRUCTURE-OF-INTELLECT
Factors Leading to General Reasoning
Although not recognizing it as a reasoning
ability, Thurstone (1938a) reported a factor
that was a possible forerunner of what later
became known as "general reasoning" in the
AAF program of analyses. The list of tests
for it was headed by Arithmetic Reasoning,
with a loading of .58. Thurstone character-
ized the psychological trait as the ability to
solve problems when there is "restriction in
solution." The other six tests on the factor
were heterogeneous with regard to probable
SI content, however. There were three vo-
cabulary tests (although another factor had
been tagged as the verbal factor), a CFT test
(Mechanical Movements), a CSU test (Spell-
ing), and a numerical test (Numerical Judg-
ment).
In AAF research, it became customary to
conclude that any factor for which an arith-
metical-reasoning test had a high loading
represented "general reasoning." The qualifi-
cation "general" was in recognition of the
fact that quite a variety of tests often loaded
significantly on the factor.
A series of analyses on reasoning abilities
by the ARP ended with one directed espe-
cially at the nature of the general-reasoning
factor. Alternative hypotheses as to its nature
were generated and investigated, with the
outcome supporting best the idea that it is
the ability to see the structure of problems
(Kettner, Guilford, & Christensen, 1956).
Later, the factor for general reasoning was
placed in the cell for CMS (cognition of
semantic systems) of the SI model. A ver-
bally stated arithmetical problem conveys to
the problem solver a somewhat complex con-
ception of a structure or system, conceived
semantically. There are, of course, many other
kinds of semantic systems.
Word-Fluency Factors
From his first analysis, Thurstone reported
a factor whose psychological character he
described as "fluency dealing with words"
(Thurstone, 1938a). He recognized that the
meanings of the words in this connection were
not of any importance; only orthographic
features were relevant. His list of tests for
the factor, however, contained only one that
would today satisfy the identification with
ABILITIES 139
either word fluency or SI ability DSU (di-
vergent production of symbolic units), which
most word-fluency factors of the past have
approached. The test in question was First
and Last Letters, in which the subject is to
list words beginning with specified first and
last letters. It had the smallest significant
loading (.39) among the tests reported for
the factor. Leading on the factor were three
tests of types that are now known to represent
ability CSU, cognition of symbolic units, not
divergent production of the same. Two of the
three were anagram tests (Anagrams and Dis-
arranged Words), and the third was Spelling.
The type of spelling test used included words
some of which were misspelled, with the
subject to say which ones. Twice in ARP
analyses such a test went on the factor for
CSU along with anagrams tests and others.
In Thurstone's (1940) analysis, the factor
that he identified as Word Fluency now ap-
pears to have been a confounding of CSU
and CSS. The CSU tests were Mirror Read-
ing and Disarranged Words, which have been
described before, and the CSS tests were Letter
Series and Number Series, which had mini-
mally significant loadings on the factor.
In the Thurstone and Thurstone (1941)
analysis, 5 good DSU tests were among the
strongest of 10 tests on the factor identified
as word fluency. They were Prefixes, First
Letter, Suffixes, Rhyming Words, and First
and Last Letters, all of which call for listing
of real words fulfilling specified class prop-
erties that their names indicate. That this
factor was confounded with CSU again is
indicated by three good-looking CSU tests in
the list: Anagrams, Four-Letter Words, and
Word Puzzles (an anagrams test). In Four-
Letter Words, such words are hidden in con-
tinuous rows of otherwise pied type. It is a
matter of recognizing familiar words under
difficult conditions, as is true of most other
CSU tests.
Closure Factors
Thurstone's two closure factors, Cl and
C2, have occupied the attention of a number
of investigators since he reported them in
1944. The study was regarded as exploratory,
as were most of the earlier analyses. Al-
though the tests were restricted to visual in-
put, the question was raised as to whether
140 J. P. GUILFORD
such factors as were to be expected would
transcend sensory modalities. Here we con-
centrate attention on three of the new factors,
two of which were identified as closure abil-
ities, where closure means the integration of
sensory input so as to differentiate figure from
ground. Much attention was given to the
question of whether it makes a difference if
the closure takes place with and without dis-
tractions or detracting influences.
In the results from the Thurstone (1944)
investigation were the bases for what became
known as Closure 1, or the "speed and
strength of closure," and in SI placement,
ability CFU-V (where CFU is the cognition
of figural units and the added "V" indicates
that the ability pertains to visual input). This
qualification is sometimes needed to remind us
that there is another factorial ability recog-
nized as CFU-A, for auditory input, from a
factor reported by Fleishman, Roberts, and
Friedman (19S8). The latter deals with such
tasks as recognizing radio-code signals and
sets of dot sounds. In what follows, it should
be understood that CFU refers to CFU-V,
for we are not concerned further with CFU-A.
It was stated earlier that Thurstone had
actually found a factor such as CFU without
realizing what it was. In his 1944 analysis,
curiously, two factors looked like CFU. He
declined to name his factor A, which he de-
scribed as the ability to form a perceptual
closure against some distraction and to hold
that closure against detracting influences. The
four CFU tests (as shown by later ARP ex-
perience) were Hidden Digits, Street Gestalt
Completion, Dotted Outlines, and Mutilated
Words. All of these tests except Dotted Out-
lines were described earlier. The dotted out-
lines were of 6-inch letters shown on a screen,
with widely spaced dots to form the lines.
Other tests had distinctly higher loadings on
factor A, for example, two CFT tests (PMA
Space and Kohs Blocks) and two NFT (con-
vergent production of figural transformations)
tests (Gottschaldt Figures A and Gottschaldt
Figures B). The last two involved seeing sim-
ple figures concealed in complex figures. From
present hindsight, factor A in the 1944 analy-
sis should probably be regarded as a con-
founding of CFU and NFT. There may have
been some confounding also with the factor
for EFU, for the leading test with a loading
of .54 was Shape Constancy, which was re-
ported in connection with that ability earlier.
Two other factors in the analysis seem to
have better claims to interpretations as CFU
and NFT, however, which leaves factor A
something of a mystery.
Thurstone called his factor F "speed of
perception," which should not be confused
with earlier factors going by a similar name.
Here the two rather faithful markers for CFU
—Street Gestalt Completion and Multilated
Words—had higher loadings than for factor
A (.53 versus .35 and .44 versus .34, respec-
tively). New tests, with even stronger load-
ings on factor F were Peripheral Span and
Dark Adaptation. Both involved perception of
single letters (hence figural content) under
difficult viewing conditions, flashed in the
periphery of the subject's visual field. There
were only two discordant facts against accept-
ing factor F as CFU. These facts were the
absence of Dotted Outlines and Hidden
Digits from the list of significant tests. In a
recent analysis (see Footnote 6), the ARP
did find that a test Hidden Print (like Hidden
Digits except that letters were also used)
was one of the strongest tests for CFU.
The same ARP analysis threw much doubt
upon the assumed need for distracting or de-
tracting material working against closure and
even need for closure at all. A new test,
Close-Ups, composed of close-up photographs
of segments of familiar objects, such as a
key or a pineapple, was quite strongly loaded
on the factor. There was no need to fuse un-
organized elements into objects, and there
were no distracting elements. The same could
be said regarding Thurstone's two peripheral-
vision tests, in which the objects were com-
plete, isolated letters.
Closure 2 is the identification for Thur-
stone's 1944 factor E. Three NFT tests were
conspicuous in the list, namely, Hidden Pic-
tures (with human and animal forms con-
cealed in a landscape) and the two Gott-
schaldt Figures tests, mentioned above. The
loadings for the latter were just about equal
to their loadings on factor A. The nature of
the leading test, Two-Hand Coordination, is
difficult to hypothesize in SI terms. There is
little in the description of it to suggest NFT.
The principle of the test was to reflect the
difficulty in tapping with the two hands simul-
 MENTAL AND STRUCTVRE-OF-INTELLECT
taneously as compared with tapping with each
hand separately, in a task from which one
should expect a large interference effect. In
interpreting his factor E, Thurstone used ex-
pressions such as "ability to shake off one
set in order to take a new one," "freedom
from Gestaltbindung," and "flexibility in
manipulating several more or less irrelevant
or conflicting gestalts." Flexibility seems ob-
viously involved in many of the tests. The
kind of flexibility would seem to be well de-
scribed by SI ability NFT, convergent pro-
duction of figural transformations. This con-
cept is more precisely defined and is perhaps
the core of Thurstone's 1944 factor E.
RECAPITULATION
In summarization, we may consider what
structure-of-intellect abilities had their germs
in the findings of Thurstone's factor analyses
and in his insights regarding outcomes. It is
also of interest to see what SI abilities are
represented in his published PMA tests.
Forerunners of SI Abilities
Thurstone's analyses cannot be justifiably
cited as supporting evidence of the validity of
SI theory or the abilities involved, because
rarely was any ability, now recognized as
unique, found unconfounded in his results.
But his insightful descriptions of his hypo-
thetical psychological variables were very sug-
gestive, and the later use of many of his tests
in following out implications from his results
was often fruitful. Thurstone was free to admit
that there were historical antecedents for
some of his factors, for instance, verbal, space,
number, and memory. Others had strong
claims of being novel findings.
The verbal factors in Thurstone's early
analyses showed relations to numerous tests,
almost all verbal, but representing a number
of semantic abilities. As time went on, those
factors converged toward a variable inter-
pretable as CMU.
His space factor was undoubtedly closer
to what was later called visualization than
to the spatial orientation from AAF research.
In other words, it led to ability CFT rather
than CFS. He found some indication of the
latter in his last reported analysis of space
tests.
ABILITIES 141
Concerning his "perceptual" factor there
was much confusion. Although out of them
came the AAF ability "perceptual speed,"
later to be identified with EFU, Thurstone's
analyses were perpetually plagued with fail-
ures to discriminate EFU, ESU, and EMU,
which differ only in terms of informational
content. Two or more of the three were
usually confounded in his results.
The number factor, with Thurstone as with
others, has proved to have been largely a
specific affair, a matter of number-operation
skills. When only one numerical-operation
test is included in an analysis, to avoid the
possibility of confounding with specific vari-
ance, such a test shows some small common-
factor components identifiable as MSI and
NSI—memory and convergent production
with symbolic implications, respectively.
Rather consistently and unusually clearly,
Thurstone brought out a factor identifiable
as MSI, because in each analysis he used two
or three different tests of the paired-associates
type. The units of information to be associ-
ated were numbers, letters, or names, hence
they were symbolic information. Implication
is essentially a new concept replacing as-
sociation. In a late analysis, Thurstone found
signs of another memory ability that was
probably MFU, for it involved recognition
of pictorial information.
One of the clearest SI abilities found by
Thurstone was for CSS (cognition of sym-
bolic systems). He identified it as "induction,"
but in earlier discussions it was argued that
many or all of the abilities in the cognition
category of the SI model could be regarded
as instances of induction.
He thought that he had demonstrated a
"deduction" ability primarily by the use of
multiple-choice syllogistic tests, but results
in ARP research have shown that such tests
are related to both SI abilities EMI and
EMR. In other words, Thurstone's deduction
factor was a composite of two SI abilities,
and they have to do with evaluation, not with
drawing conclusions. Drawing conclusions is a
matter of convergent production, and it was
recommended that we substitute the latter
operation for the concept of deduction.
Without realizing it, Thurstone found a
factor that could be cited as a forerunner of
the AAF "general reasoning" and the SI
142 J. P. GUILFORD
ability CMS. At least the fatcor was led
twice by an arithmetical-reasoning test, which
has consistently marked that factor. Before
it was given the CMS identification, it was
recognized as an ability to comprehend prob-
lems. Arithmetical problems, and others, are
conceived by the problem solver as systems.
Thurstone's word-fluency factor, based most
often on anagrams tests, was undoubtedly a
much better candidate for CSU than for DSU.
After the first analyses, some added tests that
clearly represent DSU also came out on the
factor, indicating that it was a confounding
of CSU and DSU. Both Fruchter (1948) and
Zimmerman (1953) showed that another
fluency factor was latent in Thurstone's
earliest analysis, represented by tests for SI
ability DMR.
Thurstone's analysis of perceptual tests led
to two closure factors, Cl and C2, and
eventually to SI abilities CPU and NFT. Al-
though he regarded Cl as a matter of strength
of closure against detracting material, the
latest ARP analysis in which CPU appeared
throws serious doubt upon the distraction
feature and even on the closure feature. A
more accurate description of the trait is to
call it the ability to recognize familiar visual
objects under conditions of limited input.
The essence of NFT is an ability to produce
required revisions of visual objects. It often
involves tearing down old objects in order to
form new ones. It does not seem to be a skill
for handling conflicting gestalts, as Thurstone
supposed.
SI Abilities in Published PMA Tests
The SI abilities that are featured in the
PMA tests may vary somewhat from one age
level to another, but above the 5-7-year age
level the dominant abilities seem to be rather
clear. The vocabulary tests for the "verbal"
ability should measure status in CMU. The
Space test appears to be primarily for ability
CFT or visualization, where movements or
other changes are cognized. The test Percep-
tion should measure EFU, the evaluation of
visual-figural units. Word Fluency is very ap-
propriate as a measure of DSU, divergent pro-
duction of symbolic units.
Where the Reasoning test has two kinds of
items in it, two different SI abilities are fea-
tured. Letter-series items assess ability CSS,
cognition of symbolic systems, but items from
the original Letter Grouping test should mea-
sure CSC (cognition of symbolic classes) as
well as CSS. In the latter test, the experi-
menter has to see symbolic classes after seeing
the principle of each letter set.
The PMA Number test is even more com-
plex factorially. Its common factors are MSI
and NSI, for remembering and producing
symbolic implications, but there is a strong
specific component of number-operation skills.
The importance of number skills in education
and in other connections in our society, of
course, cannot be denied, so that numerical-
operation tests should continue to be useful.
But for measures of the generalized skills
known as MSI and NSI, there are much
better tests, stronger and more univocal.
The PMA Perceptual test included at the
lower age levels should be for ability EFU,
evaluation of figural units. The Memory test
at the highest age level is for MSI, memory
for symbolic implications, or what has been
known historically as associative memory.
There are no PMA tests representing the
"deduction" factor in the PMA battery, at
any age. Neither of the closure factors is
represented, perhaps because they came after
the battery had been adopted.
Taking a more general look at the PMA
battery, to note what kind of coverage of SI
abilities was accomplished, we see that there
are three cognition abilities represented—•
CFT, CSS, and CMU. Three other operation
categories have one test each—MSI, DSU,
and EFU. In terms of content categories,
there are two figural abilities, three symbolic,
and only one semantic. In terms of product
categories, three tests pertain to units, one to
systems, one to transformations, and one to
implications. Thus, although the sampling of
categories has some breadth, there is still
severe limitation in coverage of the great
domain of human intelligence.
REFERENCES
BECHTOLDT, H. P. Factorial investigation of the per-
ceptual speed factor. American Psychologist, 1947,
2, 304-305.
BUTLEH, J. M. Simple structure reconsidered: Dis-
tinguishability and invariance in factor analysis.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1969, 4, 5-28.
CLIFF, N. Orthogonal rotation to congruence. Psy-
chometrika, 1966, 31, 33-42.
 MENTAL AND STRUCTURE-OF-INTELLECT
DAVIS, P. C. A factor analysis of the Wechsler-Belle-
vue Scale. Educational and Psychological Measure-
ment, 19S6, 16, 127-146.
DE MILLE, R. Intellect after lobotomy in schizo-
phrenia. Psychological Monological Monographs,
1962, 76 (16, Whole No. 535).
FLEISHMAN, E. A., ROBERTS, M. M., & FRIEDMAN,
M. P. A factor analysis of aptitude and proficiency
measures in radiotelegraphy. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 1958, 42, 129-137.
FRENCH, J. W. The description of aptitude and
achievement tests in terms of rotated factors. Psy-
chometric Monographs, No. 5, 1951.
FRUCHTER, B. The nature of verbal fluency. Educa-
tional and Psychological Measurement, 1948, 8,
33-47.
GUILFORD, J. P. Personality. New York: McGraw-
Hill, 19S9.
GUILFORD, J. P. Basic conceptual problems in the
psychology of thinking. In E. Harms (Ed.), Funda-
mentals of psychology: The psychology of think-
ing. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,
1960, 91, 6-21.
GUILFORD, J. P. Zero intercorrelations among tests
of intellectual abilities. Psychological Bulletin,
1964, 61, 401-404.
GUILFORD, J. P. The nature of human intelligence.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.
GUILFORD, J. P., & HOEPFNER, R. Comparisons of
varimax rotations with rotations to theoretical
targets. Educational and Psychological Measure-
ment, 1969, 29, 3-22.
GUILFORD, J. P., & HOEPFNER, R. The analysis of
intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.
GUILFORD, J. P., HOEPFNER, R., & PETERSEN, H. Pre-
dicting achievement in ninth-grade mathematics
from measures of intellectual-aptitude factors, Edu-
cational and Psychological Measurement, 1965, 25,
659-682.
GUILFORD, J. P., & LACEY, J. I. Printed Classification
Tests. (Army Air Forces Aviation Psychology Pro-
ABILITIES 143
gram Research Reports, No. 5) Washington, D. C,:
United States Government Printing Office, 1947.
GUILFORD, J. P., & ZIMMERMAN, W. S. Some variable-
sampling problems in the rotation of axes in factor
analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 1963, 60, 289-301.
KELLEY, T. L. Crossroads in the mind of man: A
study of differentiate mental abilities. Stanford,
Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1928.
KETTNER, N. W., GUILFORD, J. P., & CHRISTENSEN,
P. R. A factor-analytical study of the factor called
general reasoning. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 1956, 16, 438-453.
MERRIFIELD, P. R., GUILFORD, J. P., CHRISTENSEN,
P. R., & FRICK, J. W. The role of intellectual
factors in problem solving. Psychological Mono-
graphs, 1962, 76 (10, Whole No. 529).
MICHAEL, W. B., ZIMMERMAN, W. S., & GUILFORD,
J. P. An investigation of two hypotheses regarding
the nature of the spatial-relations and visualiza-
tion factors. Educational and Psychological Mea-
surement, 1950, 10, 187-213.
MICHAEL, W. B., ZIMMERMAN, W. S., & GUILFORD,
J. P. An investigation of the nature of spatial-re-
lations and visualization factors in two high school
populations. Educational and Psychological Mea-
surement, 1951, 11, 562-577.
THURSTONE, L. L. Primary mental abilities. Psy-
chometric Monographs, No. 1, 1938. (a)
THURSTONE, L. L. The perceptual factor. Psycho-
metrika, 1938, 3, 1-17. (b)
THURSTONE, L. L. An experimental study of simple
structure. Psychometrika, 1940, 5, 153-168.
THURSTONE, L. L. A factorial study of perception.
Psychometric Monographs, No. 4, 1944.
THURSTONE, L. L., & THURSTONE, T. G. Factorial
studies of intelligence. Psychometric Monographs,
No. 2, 1941.
ZIMMERMAN, W. S. A revised orthogonal solution for
Thurstone's original primary mental abilities test
battery. Psychometrika, 1953, 18, 77-93.
(Received June 22, 1970)

Manuscripts Accepted for Publication in the

Psychological Bulletin

African Infant Precocity. Neil Warren (School of African and Asian Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton,
BN1 9QY, England).
Amsel Frustration Effect: Interpretations and Research. John W. Scull (Laboratory of Experimental Psychology,
University of Sussex, Brighton, BN1 9QY, England).
Imprinting in Precocial Birds: Interpretation, Evidence, and Evaluation. D. W. Rajecki (Institute for Social
Research, Research Center for Group Dynamics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106).
On the Function of Structural Paraphrase: The View from the Passive. Moshe Anisfeld (Department of Psychology,
Ferkauf Graduate School, Yeshiva University, 55 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10003) and Irene
Klenbort.
Comment on Misuse of Covariance. D. A. Sprott (Department of Statistics, Faculty of Mathematics, University
of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada).
Reply to Sprott. Selby H. Evans (Institute for the Study of Cognitive Systems, Texas Christian University
Research Foundation, Fort Worth, Texas 76129).