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

net/publication/234823080

Neuropsychological Performance, IQ, Personality, and Grades in a Longitudinal

Grade-School Male Sample

Article in Individual Differences Research · December 2003

CITATIONS READS
11 2,485

5 authors, including:

Jordan B Peterson Robert O Pihl

University of Toronto McGill University
133 PUBLICATIONS 10,644 CITATIONS 334 PUBLICATIONS 17,169 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Properties of finite mixture modelling View project

MIREC Study (Maternal-Infant Research on Environmental Chemicals) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jordan B Peterson on 04 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Individual Differences Research, 2003, 1(3) 159
ISSN: 1541-745X www.idr-journal.com
©2003 Individual Differences Research Group. All rights reserved.
Neuropsychological Performance, IQ,
Personality, and Grades in a Longitudinal
Grade-School Male Sample
Jordan B. Peterson*
University of Toronto
Robert O. Pihl
McGill University
Daniel M. Higgins
Harvard University
Jean R. Séguin & Richard E. Tremblay
Université de Montréal
ABSTRACT - This study assessed the statistical relationship between
neuropsychological performance, IQ and personality test results and school
grades in a longitudinal sample of adolescent males. One-hundred and forty-
eight boys completed six years of WISC-R short forms (Block Design and
Vocabulary) and provided six years of math and language grades and grade
failure data while in elementary school. In junior high school, the same boys
completed an extensive neuropsychological test battery and the NEO-PI-R, a
standard big five personality trait measure. Neuropsychological test scores were
more powerfully associated with grades than were IQ scores, despite their later
and single administration. In addition, hierarchical regression analysis
demonstrated that three of four neuropsychological test score factors (Verbal
Learning, Executive Function, and Tactile Laterality improved the statistical
association with six-year averaged failure-weighted grades over and above IQ
(averaged Vocabulary and Block Design). NEO-PI-R Agreeableness was
significantly and positively related to grades, over and above both IQ and
neuropsychological function.
Key Words: Academic performance, neuropsychology, IQ, personality, Big Five
*Address correspondence to Jordan B. Peterson; Department of Psychology;
University of Toronto; 100 St. George Street, Toronto; Ontario, Canada; M5S
3G3; jbpeterson@psych.utoronto.ca (email).
160 Individual Differences Research, 2003, 1(3)
IQ tests are robustly associated with academic achievement (Brody, 1997),
but may not comprehensively assess intellectual capacity (Gardner, 1993;
Sternberg, Wagner, Williams & Horvath, 1995), and reveal comparatively little
about specific brain function (Kandel & Freed, 1989; Lezak, 1985; Milner &
Petrides, 1984; Moffitt & Silva, 1988; Stuss & Benson, 1986). Studies of the
cognitive performance of individuals who have sustained prefrontal cortical
damage in adulthood provide evidence for the limitations of standard IQ tests,
as well as detailed information about how aspects of cognitive function
overlooked by such tests might be assessed.
Prefrontally brain-damaged adults frequently score at their premorbid level
for IQ (or at least obtain scores in the normal range, when their premorbid IQ
is not known). Damasio (1994), for example, described a prefrontally-damaged
patient who had a pre- and post-surgical IQ 3 SD's above the mean, despite his
marked practical cognitive deterioration. Earlier observations in this line
bolstered attempts to use prefrontal surgery to relieve psychiatric
symptomatology, since such surgery apparently did not produce general IQ
decrements (Fleming, 1942; Grassi, 1950). However, later, more cautious
observers (Luria, Homskay & Blinkov, 1967) noted that the prefrontal cortex
was involved in goal-directed action, among other complex forms of behavior
and thought. The contrast between the real-world deterioration of
prefrontally-damaged individuals and their generally positive objective
intelligence test scores drove decades of research into more narrowly defined
tests of "executive function" - the metaphoric term frequently used to describe
the cognitive operations of the prefrontal cortex (Goldman-Rakic, 1996). These
tests include, but are not limited to, the "executive function" tasks included in
the present study.
Other theoretically specific forms of cognitive ability have also been assessed
using neuropsychological tests, including verbal fluency (Lezak, 1983),
associated with the function of the left frontal and bilateral temporal cortices
(Frith, Friston, Liddle & Frackowiak, 1991; Parks, Loewenstein, Dodrill,
Barker, Yoshii, Chang, Emran, Apicella, Sheramata & Duara, 1988; Randolph,
Braun, Goldberg & Chase, 1993); attention (Lezak, 1983) and resistance to
distractibility (Sattler, 1988), using the Digit Span test from the Wechsler
Memory Scales (Wechsler, 1987); memory, both verbal, using the Paired
Associates test from the Wechsler Memory Scales (Wechsler, 1987), and spatial,
using the Spatial Memory task developed by Smith & Milner (1981; 1989); and
somaesthetic ability, using the Dichaptic Lateralization task, which is
theoretically associated with the functions of the right hemisphere, and assesses
the ability to perceive nonlinguistically presented spatial/tactual stimuli
(Witelson, 1974; 1976).
Finally, there is some evidence that personality may also be a valid predictor
of performance or achievement, both academic (Wentzel, 1993) and industrial
(Hunter & Schmidt, 1996; Barrick & Mount, 1996). This is particularly true in
the academic case when the dependent variable is in-class performance, rather
than written work (Rothstein, Paunonen, Rush & King, 1999). Furthermore, it
 Individual Differences Research, 2003, 1(3) 161
appears that inclusion of personality trait measures can improve the predictive
validity of batteries assessing planning and organizational skill (McHenry,
Hough, Toquam, Hanson & Ashworth, 1990). Personality research has
converged on a big-five trait model, assessing the orthogonal dimensions of
positive emotionality, negative emotionality, conscientious achievement,
agreeable amiability, and openness or aesthetic/intellectual interest (McCrae &
John, 1992; Goldberg, 1992).
Some trait features, such as higher levels of conscientious achievement and
lower levels of negative emotionality, appear universally associated with higher
levels of performance (Hunter & Schmidt, 1996; Barrick & Mount, 1996). The
desirability of other trait features appears more situation-specific. Individuals
working in sales, for example, should be characterized by higher levels of
positive emotionality or extraversion (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Salgado, 1997).
Prosociality, which appears to be an attribute somewhat equivalent to
agreeableness, appears associated with better grades (Wentzel, 1993), with
antisociality predicting the reverse outcome. Enhanced agreeableness is
similarly associated with increased interpersonal skill, and improved work team
performance (Neuman & Wright, 1999), but may not be associated with high
levels of creative achievement (King, McKee & Broyles, 1996), and is not
necessarilydesirable among high autonomy managers (Barrick & Mount, 1993).
Openness, finally, appears associated with flexibility in thinking and creativity
(King, McKee and Broyles, 1996).
We therefore attempted to determine if neuropsychological test and
personality test scores would be associated with school achievement, in a
longitudinally-followed population of adolescent males. We hypothesized (1)
that academic achievement would be as strongly associated with
neuropsychological test performance as with IQ, particularly in the case of tests
ofexecutive function and verbal learning, (2) that neuropsychological test scores
would account for variance in academic achievement over and above that of IQ,
and (3) that personality variables, particularly agreeableness (following
Wentzel, 1993) as well as conscientiousness and reversed neuroticism
(following Hunter & Schmidt, 1996 and Barrick & Mount, 1996) would be
positivelyrelated to academic achievement, and would account for variance over
and above that of IQ and neuropsychological performance.
Method
Participants
Participants were drawn from an ongoing longitudinal study of the entire
1984 male kindergarten population of the 53 most impoverished Montreal
Catholic School districts (original N=1034) (Tremblay, Pihl, Vitaro & Dobkin,
1994). At age 14, a lab sample of 177 boys was selected for participation in
summertime laboratory studies, according to criteria detailed in Séguin, Pihl,
Harden, Tremblay and Boulerice (1995). Complete longitudinal data for IQ,
neuropsychological function, and grades was available for 148 of these boys.
Personality data was also available for 126 of these 148.
162 Individual Differences Research, 2003, 1(3)
IQ Estimates
All available boys were administered the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for
Children - Revised (WISC-R) Block Design (Wechsler, 1974) subtest regularly
from ages 7-12 and again at age 15, and the WISC-R Vocabulary subtest
(Wechsler, 1974) regularly from ages 7-13 and again at age 15. Scaled subtest
scores were computed within, and then averaged across available years. The
boys averaged 2.78 Block Design observations (SD= 1.73), with a range of 1-6,
and 4.18 Vocabulary observations (SD= 2.15), with a range of 1-6. Mean raw
score for Block Design = 10.61 (SD= 2.65); for Vocabulary, 8.05 (SD= 2.18).
This corresponds to a scaled score of ~ 105 for Block Design and ~ 85 for
Vocabulary.
The mean correlation between Block Design measures was r = .66 (SD= .16).
The mean correlation between the averaged Block Design measure and any
given year was r = .86 (SD= .06), while it was r = .85, p < .0001 for the measure
taken at age 15. The alpha reliability for Block Design (N = 33, because of
missing data across years) was .92. The mean correlation between Vocabulary
measures was r = .63 (SD= .13). The mean correlation between the averaged
Vocabulary measure and any given year was r = .82 (SD= .13), while it was r
= .75, p < .0001 for the measure taken at age 15. The alpha reliability for
Vocabulary (N = 33, because of missing data across years) was .90.
Grade Estimates
Grades for all available boys were obtained for every year from age 10 to 14.
The boys attended a variety of schools, which graded according to varying
criteria. For the purposes of comparison, grades were converted to a five-point
scale, with 1= fail/poor, 2= fair, 3= good, 4= very good, and 5= excellent.
Grades were calculated for French and Math classes, averaged within, and then
across available years. Finally, grades were failure-weighted, such that every
individual who was not in an age-appropriate class at age 14 (N= 69) had their
grade estimate multiplied by .5.
The boys averaged 3.90 French grade measures (SD= 1.44), with a range of
1-5, and 3.88 Math grade measures (SD= 1.43). Mean raw score for French =
2.65 (SD= .70); for Math, 2.85 (SD= 2.65). The mean correlation between
French measures was r = .44 (SD= .12). The alpha reliability for the French
average (N = 83, because of missing data across years) was .82. The mean
correlation between the failure weighted averaged grade measure and any given
year of French was r = .59 (SD= .12), while it was r = .60, p < .0001 for the
measure taken at age 14. The mean correlation between Math measures was r
= .46 (SD= .06). The alpha reliability for the Math average (N = 80, because of
missing data across years), was also .82. The mean correlation between the
failure weighted averaged grade measure and any given year of Math was r =
.59 (SD= .10), while it was r = .52, p < .0001 for the measure taken at age 14.
Neuropsychological Performance
Over the ages of 13 and 14, all boys were administered a neuropsychological
 Individual Differences Research, 2003, 1(3) 163 164 Individual Differences Research, 2003, 1(3)
test battery, detailed in Séguin et al. (1995), composed of the Dichaptic Table 2
Lateralization (DL) (Witelson, 1976), Digit Span (DS) and Paired Associates Zero Order Correlations between Incidental Spatial
(PASS) (Wechsler, 1987), Nonspatial Conditional Association (NSP) (Petrides, Learning Factor and Subtests
1990), Self-Ordered Pointing (SOP) (Milner, Petrides & Smith, 1985), Spatial
Memory (SM) (Smith & Milner, 1981), Strategic Problem Solving (SPS) ISLF SMI SMT
(Becker, Butters, Rivoira, & Miliotis, 1986), Subjective Ordering or Number SMI .75
Randomization (NR) (Wiegersma, van der Scheer & Human, 1990; Petrides, SMT -.67 -.28
Alivisatos, Meyer & Evans, 1993), and Verbal Learning [semantic (SFL) and SMR -.62 -.28 .26
letter (LFL) (Lezak, 1983)] tests.
Séguin et al. (1995) factor analyzed (principal components analysis; oblique Notes: ISLF = Incidental Spatial Learning Factor, SMI = Spatial Memory Immediate
rotation) the results of this battery, deriving four factors with eigenvalues >1, Recall, SMT = Spatial Memory Time to Completion, SMR = Spatial Memory Recall
accounting for 58% of the variance: Verbal Learning, composed of the SFL, (Delayed). All p's < .001.
LFL, PASS and DS tests (17.0% of the variance, Alpha = .76); Incidental
Spatial Learning, composed of three SM subscores, (time for completion, Table 3
immediate and delayed recall; 11.5% of the variance, Alpha = .46); Tactile Zero Order Correlations between Tactile Lateralization Factor and Subtests
Lateralization, composed of two DL subscores (correct answers for right and left
hands; 11.8% of variance, Alpha = .64); and Executive Function, composed of TLF DLL
the NSP, NR, SOP, and SPS tests (15.0% of the variance, Alpha = .61). DLR .84
Correlations between these four factors and their subtests are presented in DLL .81 .47
Tables 1-4. The mean correlation for VLF and its subcomponents was .71, for
ISLF and its subcomponents .71, for TLF and its subcomponents .52, and for EF Notes: TLF = Tactile Lateralization Factor, DLR = Dichaptic Lateralization Right, DLL
and its subcomponents .60. = Dichaptic Lateralization Left. All p's < .0001.

Personality
Table 4
The revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992)
Zero Order Correlations between Executive Function Factor and Subtests
was also administered at age 16, to a reduced set of 126 individuals. The
NEO-PI-R consists of 5 general factors (Extraversion, Neuroticism,
Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience). Each subscale EFF NSP NR SOP
is composed of 48 items, coded on a five-point scale. Each general factor may NSP -.81
be further subdivided into 6 facets of 8 items each. For the current analysis, the NR .65 -.38
NEO-PI-R was utilized as five subscale scores. Alpha reliability of these SOP -.58 .37 -.17
subscale scores averages ~ .90 (Costa & McCrae, 1992). SPS .56 -.34 .22 -.20

Notes: EFF = Executive Function Factor, NSP = Non-Spatial Conditioned Association (number of trials,
Table 1 higher is worse), NR = Number Randomization (number of trials, easy version, higher is better), SOP
Zero Order Correlations between Verbal Learning Factor and Subtests = Self-Ordered Pointing, total number of errors, higher is worse), SPS = Strategic Problem Solving
(number of successful tests, higher is better). All p's < .05.
VLF SF LF PA
SF .78
LF .78 .54 Results
PA .62 .45 .36 Correlational Analysis: IQ, Neuropsychological Test Factor Scores and
DS .66 .41 .45 .36 Failure-Weighted Grades
Notes: VLF = Verbal Learning Factor, SF = Semantic Fluency, LF = Letter Fluency, PA The zero-order correlations for the cognitive variables (IQ and
= Paired Associates, DS = Digit Span. All p's < .0001. neuropsychological test factor scores) and failure-weighted grades are presented
in Table 5. The zero-order correlations between personality and failure-weighted
grades were non-significant.
 Individual Differences Research, 2003, 1(3) 165 166 Individual Differences Research, 2003, 1(3)
Correlational Analysis: IQ, Individual Neuropsychological Tests, and Regression Analyses: IQ, Neuropsychological Test Factor Scores, Personality
Failure-Weighted Grades and Failure-Weighted Grades
Table 6 contains zero-order correlations for the cognitive tests (IQ and Two stepwise linear regressions were first conducted, to assess the separate
individual neuropsychological test scores) and failure-weighted grades. relationships between IQ and grades and neuropsychological function and
grades. Entry F was set at .05, and removal at .10, for the stepping procedure.
Table 5 1. IQ and Grades: IQ and grades were strongly related, R²= .34, r= .58,
Zero Order Correlations between Cognitive Variables (IQ and F(2,145)= 37.37, p < .0001, with significant contributions from averaged
Neuropsychological Factor Scores) and Failure-Weighted Grades Vocabulary (β = .49, t= 6.97, p< .0001) and averaged Block Design (β = .19, t=
2.68, p< .008).
VLF ISLF TFF Vocab BD FW Grade 2. Neuropsychological Function and Grades: The neuropsychological test
EFF .28 .15 .19 .37 .31 .43 factor scores and grades were strongly related as well, R²= .46, r= .68,
VLF -.00 .12 .51 .33 .60 F(3,144)= 40.94, p< .0001, with significant contributions from the Verbal
ISLF .02 .05 .10 .09 Learning (β = .51, t= 7.91, p< .0001), Executive Function (β = .26, t= 4.01, p<
TFF .17 .14 .28 .0001), and Tactile Laterality (β = .17, t= 2.68, p< .008) factor scores.
Vocab .31 .55 Incidental Spatial Learning stepped out (β in= .05, t= .85, p< .40). The
BD .35 relationship between regression-derived neuropsychological performance
z-scores is presented graphically in Figure 1. It is of some interest to note that
Notes: Exec F= Executive Function factor score, Verb L= Verbal Learning factor score, this relationship appears quadratic, as indicated, rather than linear. This may
TcLT= Tactile Laterality factor score, M Voc= Averaged Vocabulary score, M BD= be valid, or may be a consequence of an apparent floor effect with regards to
Averaged Block Design score, FW Grade= Failure Weighted Grades. All p's < .05,
grades. In any case, analysis of the quadratic relationship revealed R² = .49, r
except ns, underlined.
= .7, p < .0001.
Table 6
Significant Zero Order Correlations between Individual
Figure 1
Relationship between Regression-Derived Neuropsychological
Neuropsychological Scores and Failure-Weighted Grades
Performance Z-Scores and Failure-Weighted Grades
FW Grade
Non Spatial Conditional Association -.36
Number Randomization .13 5
Self-Ordered Pointing (Concrete) -.25
Self-Ordered Pointing (Abstract) -.39
4
Strategic Problem Solving .46
Semantic Fluency .47
Letter Fluency .51 3
Paired Associate .40
Digit Span .50
Dichaptic Lateralization Right .35 2

Notes: FW Grade = Failure-Weighted Grade, Non-Spatial Conditioned Association

Weighted
(number of trials, higher is worse), Number Randomization (number of trials, easy 1

Grades
Failure
version, higher is better), Self-Ordered Pointing (Concrete and Abstract) (number of
errors, higher is worse), Strategic Problem Solving (number of successful tests, higher 0
is better), Paired Associate (number correct, higher is better), Digit Span (number
correct, higher is better), Dichaptic Lateralization Right (number correct, higher is -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
better). Dichaptic Lateralization Left did not correlate significantly with FW Grade. All
Regression-Derived Neuropsychological Z-Scores
p's < .01.

Note: Linear R² = .46, Quadratic R² = .49, p< .0001, uncorrected for reliability.
 Individual Differences Research, 2003, 1(3) 167
The capacity of neuropsychological test performance to provide an
incremental improvement to the relationship between IQ and failure-weighted
grades was assessed next, using hierarchical regression analysis. Averaged
Vocabulary and Averaged Block Design were entered into block 1, while the
four neuropsychological variables were allowed to step in block 2. The overall
model was highly significant (R²= .51, r= .71, F(5,142)= 29.15, p < .0001), with
significant block 1 contributions from averaged Vocabulary (β = .24, t= 3.37,
p< .001), but not averaged Block Design (β = .03, t= .99, p< .32). Verbal
Learning (β = .38, t= 5.42, p< .0001, incremental r= .089), Executive Function
(β = .19, t= 2.89, p< .005, incremental r= .026), and Tactile Laterality (β = .14,
t= 2.38, p< .019, incremental r= .014) stepped in significantly in block 2,
adding a total incremental r= .13, with Incidental Spatial Learning stepping out,
once again (β in= .04, t= .73, p< .47). A simple stepwise regression with both
IQ and all four neuropsychological factor scores produced R²= .50, r= .71,
F(4,143)= 36.19, p< .0001, with Verbal Learning (β = .39, t= 5.71, p< .0001),
Averaged Vocabulary (β = .25, t= 3.51, p< .0006), Executive Function (β = .20,
t= 3.11, p< .002), Tactile Laterality (β = .15, t= 2.45, p< .02) stepping in and
averaged Block Design (β in= .06, t= .99, p< .32) and Incidental Spatial
Learning stepping out (β in= .05, t= .80, p< .32).
The capacity of personality test scores to provide an incremental
improvement to the relationship between IQ/neuropsychological performance
and failure-weighted grades was then assessed, once again using hierarchical
regression analysis. The two IQ and four neuropsychological variables were
entered in block 1, and the five personality variables allowed to step in, in block
2. The overall model was highly significant R²= .54, r= .74, F(7,118)= 19.88,
p < .0001, with significant block 1 contributions from Verbal Learning (β = .40,
t= 5.01, p< .0001), averaged Vocabulary (β = .25, t= 3.20, p< .002), Executive
Function (β = .17, t= 2.43, p< .016), and Tactile Laterality (β = .15, t= 2.31, p<
.023), but not averaged Block Design (β = .05, t= .76, p< .44), or Incidental
Spatial Learning (β = .10, t= .76, p< .44). Agreeableness stepped in
significantly in block 2 (β = .21, t= 3.36, p< .02), while Extraversion,
Neuroticism, Conscientiousness and Openness stepped out (all β in < .06, t <
.86, p > .12). Very similar results were obtained when the analysis was repeated,
using only the significant IQ and neuropsychological predictors from the
previous analysis (Vocabulary, Verbal Learning, Executive Function, and
Tactile Laterality).¹
Discussion
We hypothesized that academic achievement would be as strongly associated
with neuropsychological test performance as it was with IQ, particularly in the
case of tests of executive function and verbal learning. We also hypothesized
that neuropsychological test scores would account for variance in academic
achievement, over and above that of IQ. Finally, we hypothesized that Big-Five
personality variables, particularly agreeableness (Wentzel, 1993), as well as
conscientiousness and reversed neuroticism (Hunter & Schmidt, 1996; Barrick
168 Individual Differences Research, 2003, 1(3)
& Mount, 1996), would be positively related to academic achievement, and
would account for variance over and above that of IQ and neuropsychological
performance.
Neuropsychological test performance (particularly executive function and
verbal learning) indeed appeared powerfully associated with grades - at least as
potently as IQ, and perhaps more so. It is reasonable to draw attention to the
magnitude of this relationship: a correlation approaching .70, the magnitude
obtained in this study, is extremely high. Correlations of .50 or higher are
characteristic of only 11% of psychological assessment studies, and 3% of social
psychologystudies, on average (Hemphill, 2003). Frequently, assessments of the
relationship between general mental ability and various important life outcomes
approach or exceed .50. Hunter & Schmidt (1998) reported a large
meta-analytically derived estimate of .51 for the relationship between general
mental ability and job performance, for example. However, this estimate is
corrected for restriction of range and reliability - correction that substantively
increases its magnitude. Assuming, in the present case, that the
neuropsychological tasks are about as reliable as the grade estimates (.82) - an
assumption that seems reasonable, given that the correlation between the factor
scores and the subcomponent task scores are about the same magnitude as the
averaged grade score and grades for any given year - the true correlation could
be as high as .68/.82 = .83. This is an effect size very rarely found in
psychology.
Furthermore, neuropsychological test scores, particularly executive function
and verbal learning, appeared to add validity incremental (r = 0.13) to that of
IQ, alone - no easy task, given that the relationship between IQ and academic
performance is already so powerful. It might be objected that the IQ assessment
was limited to Vocabulary and Block Design, and that this limitation suppressed
the potential power of the IQ measures. However, IQ estimates derived from
Block Design/Vocabulary subtests typically correlate at .91 with full-scale IQ
scores (Sattler, 1988; Table C-10, p. 820). Furthermore, grade and IQ estimates
were taken concurrently in the present study, while the neuropsychological
assessment occurred at the end of the period of time for which academic data
were available. Finally, the IQ assessments occurred multiple times, increasing
their reliability, while the neuropsychological assessment only occurred once.
We have also produced recent evidence that neuropsychological test
performance (restricted, in this case, to tests of Executive Function and Verbal
Learning) also strongly predicts supervisor and self ratings of job performance,
among managers, administrators and line-workers of a medium sized
manufacturing company (Peterson, Higgins, Lee & Pihl, 2001; Higgins,
Peterson, Lee & Pihl, submitted a) and are strongly positive associated with
grades at Harvard University (Peterson, Higgins, Lee & Pihl, 2001; Higgins,
Peterson, Lee & Pihl, submitted c) and the University of Toronto (Higgins,
Peterson, Lee & Pihl, submitted b). Perhaps tests derived from the
neuropsychological literature might be usefully applied to the twin problems of
predicting and understanding academic and industrial performance, and help
 Individual Differences Research, 2003, 1(3) 169
us master the so far elusive task of adding incremental validity to IQ.
Personality testing did not fare so well, at least on its own. One potential
reason for this is the lag between grade assessment and personality testing in the
present study. However, traits are supposed to remain constant over time periods
of at least three to seven years, at least in theory (Costa & McCrae, 1992) (with
r's ranging from .51 to .82). Some evidence did emerge, supporting Wentzel's
(1993) presuppositions: once variance in IQ and neuropsychological test
performance had been accounted for, with regards to failure-weighted grades,
Agreeableness appeared positively related. Perhaps this is because children with
better interpersonal skills are looked upon favorably by teachers, and given the
benefit of the doubt; perhaps this is because agreeable children actually learn
more.
The present study suffered from a number of methodological limitations,
despite what it revealed. First, the relationship between neuropsychological
performance and grades was assessed retrospectively, eradicating any possibility
of drawing a clear causal relationship. Second, assessment of IQ, while
reasonably complete, could have benefitted from inclusion of a highly g-loaded
test like the Raven's Progressive Matrices (Raven, 1998), as well as additional
measures of crystallized intelligence. In recent work at the University of
Toronto, we have done precisely this in the context of a concurrent study, and
the incremental validity of neuropsychological performance over IQ remained
extant (Higgins et al., submitted b). A prospective longitudinal study would
constitute the best possible design, with neuropsychological performance
assessed prior to academic and other performance measures. We are currently
undertaking such a study in the industrial domain.
Acknowledgment
The National Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the Canadian
Institutes of Health Research, and the Fonds pour la Formation des Chercheurs et l'Aide
à la Recherche (FCAR) provided scholarships that made this collaborative work
possible. The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, FCAR, and
the Conseil Québécois en Recherche Sociale funded the project and Research Unit on
Child Psychosocial Maladjustment based at Université de Montréal.
Notes
¹The original selection criteria for the boys (Séguin et al., 1995) involved their
categorization according to low, moderate and high multi-year averaged levels of
teacher-rated aggression. The focus of the current paper was the relationship between
IQ, neuropsychological function, personality and grades. However, the authors were
concerned that selection for aggression may have affected the generalizability of the
present results. All analysis were therefore re-run, exactly as presented, except that all
blocks were shifted up one (so block 1 became block 2, etc.) and aggression category was
entered into block 1. The results were essentially unchanged as a consequence of this
procedure, although aggression category always entered into the equations significantly.
So, for example, the final simple stepwise regression with aggression category, IQ and
all four neuropsychological factor scores produced R²= .54, r= .74, F(5,142)= 33.44, p<
170 Individual Differences Research, 2003, 1(3)
.0001, with Aggression Category (beta = -.21, t= -3.41, p< .0008), Verbal Learning
(beta= .41, t= 5.81, p< .0001), Averaged Vocabulary (beta= .25, t= 3.51, p< .0006),
Executive Function (beta= .22, t= 3.18, p< .002) and Tactile Laterality (beta= .16, t=
2.74, p< .02) stepping in, and averaged Block Design (beta in= .04, t= .75, p< .46) and
Incidental Spatial Learning stepping out (beta in= .05, t= .74, p< .46). The beta weights
for executive function were slightly suppressed in the course of these new analyses, but
this was because aggression category and executive function were significantly related,
as reported in Séguin et al. 1995.
References
Barrick, M.R. & Mount, M.K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job
performance: a meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.
Barrick, M.R. & Mount, M.K. (1993). Autonomy as a moderator of the relationships
between the Big Five personality dimensions and job performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 78, 111-118.
Barrick, M.R. & Mount, M.K. (1996). Effects of impression management and
self-deception on the predictive validity of personality constructs. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 81, 261-272.
Becker, J. T., Butters, N., Rivoira, P. & Miliotis, P. (1986). Asking the right questions:
Problem solving in male alcoholics with Korsakoff's syndrome. Alcoholism: Clinical
and Experimental Research, 10, 641-646.
Brody, N. (1997). Intelligence, schooling and society. American Psychologist, 52,
1046-105.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory and NEO
five-factor inventory professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources.
Damasio, A.R (1994). Descartes' error. New York: Putnam.
Fleming, G.W.T.H. (1942). Some preliminary remarks on prefrontal leucotomy. Journal
of Mental Science, 88, 282-284.
Frith, C. D., Friston, K. J., Liddle, P. F. & Frackowiak, R. S. J. (1991). A PET study of
word finding. Neuropsychologia, 29, 1137-1148.
Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
Goldberg, L.R. (1992). The development of markers for the big-five factor structure.
Psychological Assessment, 4, 26-42.
Goldman-Rakic, P.S. (1996). Regional and cellular fractionation of working memory.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 93, 13473-1348.
Grassi, J.R. (1950). Abstract behavior following prefrontal lobotomy. Psychiatric
Quarterly, 24, 74-88.
Hemphill, J.F. (2003). Interpreting the magnitudes of correlation coefficients. American
Psychologist, 58, 78-8.
Higgins, D.M., Peterson, J.B., and Pihl, R.O. (submitted a) Computerized
neuropsychological and big-5 personality task scores and concurrent corporate
managerial/administrative and line-worker performance.
Higgins, D.M., Peterson, J.B., Lee, A. and Pihl, R.O. (submitted b). Prefrontal cognitive
ability, the g factor, and personality in predicting academic performance among
university undergraduates.
Higgins, D.M., Peterson, J.B., Lee, A. and Pihl, R.O. (submitted c). Prefrontal cognitive
 Individual Differences Research, 2003, 1(3) 171
ability and conscientiousness predict academic performance in high-achieving
university undergraduates.
Higgins, D.M., Peterson, J.B., Pihl, R.O. & Lee, A.G. (2001). Computerized
neuropsychological and big-5 personality performance and academic achievement
at Harvard. Paper presented at the American Psychological Society, Toronto, Ontario.
Hunter, J.E. & Schmidt, F. (1996). Intelligence and job performance: Economic and
social implications. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 2, 447-472.
Kandel, E. & Freed, D. (1989). Frontal-lobe dysfunction and antisocial behavior: A
review. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 45, 404-413.
King, L.A., McKee, W. & Broyles, S.J. (1996). Creativity and the five-factor model.
Journal of Research in Personality, 30, 189-203.
Lezak, M. D. (1985). Neuropsychological assessment. In J. A. M. Frederiks (Ed.),
Handbook of clinical neurology: Vol. 1. Clinical neuropsychology (pp. 515-530).
New York: Elsevier.
Lezak, M. D. (1983). Neuropsychological assessment (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Luria, A.R., Homskaya, E.D. & Blinkov, S.M. (1967). Impaired selectivity of mental
processes in association with a lesion of the frontal lobe. Neuropsychologia, 5,
105-117.
McCrae, R.R. & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its
applications. Journal of Personality, 60, 175-215.
McHenry, J.J., Hough, L.M., Toquam, J.L., Hanson, M.A. & Ashworth, S. (1990).
Project A validity results: The relationship between predictor and criterion domains.
Personnel Psychology, 43, 335-354.
Milner, B. & Petrides, M. (1984). Behavioural effects of frontal-lobe lesions in man.
Trends in Neurosciences, 7, 403-407.
Milner, B., Petrides, M. & Smith, L. (1985). Frontal lobes and the temporal organization
of memory. Human Neurobiology, 4, 137-142.
Moffitt,T. E. & Silva,P. A. (1988). Neuropsychological deficit and self-reported
delinquency in an unselected birth cohort. Journal of the American Academy of Child
and Adolescent Psychiatry, 27, 233-24.
Neuman, G.A. & Wright, J. (1999). Team effectiveness: Beyond skills and cognitive
ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 376-389.
Parks, R. W., Loewenstein, D. A., Dodrill, K. L., Barker,W. W., Yoshii, F., Chang, J.
Y., Emran, A., Apicella, A., Sheramata, W. A. & Duara, R. (1988). Cerebral
metabolic effects of a verbal fluency test: A PET scan study. Journal of Clinical and
Experimental Neuropsychology, 10, 565-575.
Peterson, J.B., Higgins, D.M., Lee, A.G. & Pihl, R.O. (2001). Computerized
neuropsychological and big-5 personality task scores and concurrent corporate
managerial/administrative performance. Paper presented at the American
Psychological Society, Toronto, Ontario.
Petrides, M. (1990). Nonspatial conditional learning impaired in patients with unilateral
frontal but not unilateral temporal lobe excisions. Neuropsychologia, 28, 137-149.
Petrides, M., Alivisatos, B., Meyer, E., & Evans, A. C. (1993). Functional activation of
the human frontal cortex during the performance of verbal working memory tasks.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 90,
878-882.
Randolph, C., Braun, A. R., Goldberg, T. E. & Chase, T. N. (1993). Semantic fluency
in Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and Huntington's disease: Dissociation of storage and
View publication stats
172 Individual Differences Research, 2003, 1(3)
retrieval failures. Neuropsychology, 7, 82-88.
Raven, J. C. (1998). Raven's Progressive Matrices. San Antonio, Texas: The
Psychological Corporation.
Rothstein, M.G., Paunonen, S.V., Rush, J.C. & King, G.A. (1994). Personality and
cognitive predictors of performance in graduate business school. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 86, 516-53.
Salgado, J.F. (1997). The five factor model of personality and job performance in the
European Community. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 30-43.
Sattler, J.M. (1988). Assessment of children. San Diego: Author
Séguin, J.R., Pihl, R.O., Harden, P.W., Tremblay, R.E. & Boulerice, B. (1995).
Cognitive and neuropsychological characteristics of physically aggressive boys.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 104, 614-624.
Smith, M. L. & Milner, B. (1981). The role of right hippocampus in the recall of spatial
location. Neuropsychologia, 19, 781-793.
Smith, M. L. & Milner, B. (1989). Right hippocampal impairment in the recall of spatial
location: Encoding deficit or rapid forgetting? Neuropsychologia, 27, 71-81.
Smith, M., and Milner, B. (1981). The role of right hippocampus in the recall of spatial
location. Neuropsychologia, 19, 781-793.
Sternberg, R.J., Wagner, R.K., Williams, W.M. & Horvath, J.A. (1995). Testing
common sense. American Psychologist, 50, 630-641.
Stuss, D. T. & Benson, D. F. (1986). The frontal lobes. New York: Raven.
Tremblay, R.E., Pihl, R.O., Vitaro, F., Dobkin, P.L. (1994). Predicting early onset of
male antisocial behavior from preschool behavior. Archives of General Psychiatry,
51, 732-739.
Wechsler, D. (1974). Manual for the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children - Revised.
San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (1987). Wechsler Memory Scale - Revised. New York: Psychological
Corporation.
Wentzel, K.R. (1993). Does being good make the grade? Social behavior and academic
competence in middle school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 357-364.
Wiegersma, S., van der Scheer, E., and Human, R. (1990). Subjective ordering,
short-term memory, and the frontal lobes. Neuropsychologia, 28, 95-98.
Witelson, S. F. (1976). Sex and the single hemisphere: Specialization of the right
hemisphere for spatial processing. Science, 193, 425-427.
Witelson, S.F. (1974). Hemispheric specialization for linguistic and nonlinguistic tactual
perception using a dichotomous stimulation technique. Cortex, 10, 3-17.
Received 01/21/2003; Revision Received 05/12/2003; Accepted 05/12/2003