Intelligence 68 (2018) 6–20

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Intelligence
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/intell

Effects of cognitive abilities on child and youth academic achievement: T

Evidence from the WISC-V and WIAT-III
⁎
Jacqueline M. Caemmerera, , Danika L.S. Maddocksb, Timothy Z. Keithb, Matthew R. Reynoldsc
a
Howard University, United States
b
University of Texas at Austin, United States
c
University of Kansas, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The relations between children and adolescents' cognitive abilities and their reading, writing, and math
Reading achievement were examined using the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fifth Edition and Wechsler
Writing Individual Achievement Test, Third Edition co-norming sample. We tested and compared models that included
Mathematics effects from the Cattell-Horn-Carroll broad cognitive abilities and models that focused on the effects of g only.
Academic
Developmental differences in the patterns of cognitive-achievement effects were tested for statistical significance
Cognitive
using interaction terms. Comprehension-knowledge exerted direct effects on all reading and most writing skills,
CHC theory
fluid reasoning exerted direct effects on essay writing and math skills, and processing speed exerted direct effects
on reading fluency, math fluency, and math calculation skills. Working memory significantly influenced most of
the achievement skills and was particularly important for younger children. The effect of g on all achievement
skills was strong, but indirect through the broad abilities and often overlapped with the effect of fluid reasoning.
Results from this study suggest that children and adolescent's reading, math, and writing are differentially in-
fluenced by their cognitive abilities, and some of these effects vary by age.

1. Introduction
Individually administered intelligence tests are key for measuring
an individual's general intelligence and specific cognitive strengths and
weaknesses (Kaufman, Raiford, & Coalson, 2015). Many modern in-
telligence tests measure constructs described by the Cattell-Horn-Car-
roll (CHC) theory of cognitive abilities (Carroll, 1993; Cattell & Horn,
1978). These constructs include general intelligence and broad cogni-
tive abilities such as fluid reasoning, verbal comprehension/knowledge,
short-term memory, visual processing, and processing speed. In the
CHC model of intelligence, general intelligence and the broad cognitive
abilities may be interpreted to operate together within a system of in-
terrelated cognitive abilities.
Numerous research studies have examined the effects of CHC cog-
nitive constructs on areas of academic achievement (see McGrew &
Wendling, 2010). Results from these studies have shown that there are
some relatively predictable effects of CHC constructs (i.e., general in-
telligence and broad cognitive abilities) on achievement areas such as
reading and math (e.g., Floyd, Meisinger, Gregg, & Keith, 2012;
Glutting, Watkins, Konold, & McDermott, 2006; Hajovsky, Reynolds,
Floyd, Turek, & Keith, 2014; McGrew, 1993; Niileksela, Reynolds,
Keith, & McGrew, 2016; Vanderwood, McGrew, Flanagan, & Keith,
2002). One limitation of conclusions drawn from previous research is
that a majority of these studies have been conducted using standardi-
zation data from the Woodcock-Johnson (WJ) co-normed cognitive and
achievement batteries (McGrew & Wendling, 2010). For example, al-
though the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC) is widely
used in practice (Archer, Buffington-Vollum, Stredny, & Handel, 2006;
Cashel, 2002), to date, only four studies have examined the effects of
CHC-type cognitive abilities measured by the Wechsler scales on aca-
demic achievement (Beaujean, Parkin, & Parker, 2014; Glutting et al.,
2006; Oh, Glutting, Watkins, Youngstrom, & McDermott, 2004; Parkin
& Beaujean, 2012). Some of the results from these WISC studies were
interpreted as inconsistent with results from previous research that used
the Woodcock tests. If the relations between cognitive and achievement
abilities vary across tests, then it would be important to consider these
inconsistencies when interpreting findings based on specific tests.
There are several possible reasons for the inconsistent findings be-
tween the WJ and WISC tests. The divergent findings may be due to the
different tests, different constructs measured by the WISC, or differ-
ences in what is interpreted as a meaningful effect size. But differences
may also be related to an inconsistent consideration of developmental

⁎
Corresponding author at: Howard University, School of Education, 2441 4th Street NW, Washington, DC 20059, United States.
E-mail address: jacqueline.caemmere@howard.edu (J.M. Caemmerer).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2018.02.005
Received 26 November 2016; Received in revised form 21 February 2018; Accepted 22 February 2018
0160-2896/ © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
J.M. Caemmerer et al.
differences across the studies. For example, research has shown that
CHC cognitive effects on achievement are also a function of age (e.g.,
Hajovsky et al., 2014).
In addition, research with the WISC-IV also only focused on
achievement areas that were broadly defined (e.g., language), rather
than specific aspects of achievement (e.g., basic reading). Because
broad achievement variables are emergent combinations of more spe-
cific acquired achievement skills, it is especially useful to investigate
the cognitive ability influences on these specific achievement areas
(e.g., basic reading and reading comprehension versus broad reading).
For example, lack of basic word reading skills may result in a reading
comprehension weakness that is not necessarily due to poor compre-
hension, but due to a weakness in word reading skills. It is important to
understand cognitive ability influences on word reading because these
cognitive influences may differ from those involved in reading com-
prehension (e.g., Christopher et al., 2016).
The co-norming sample of the newly revised WISC, Fifth Edition
(WISC-V; Wechsler, 2014) and the Wechsler Individual Achievement
Test, Third Edition (WIAT-III), in which each participant completed
both tests, provides an opportunity to test whether CHC constructs
measured by the WISC-V have the same effects on academic achieve-
ment as found in research with other cognitive and achievement bat-
teries. Examination of CHC cognitive-achievement effects with a mea-
sure other than the WJ tests will not only provide information about the
effects of WISC-V constructs on achievement, it will also contribute to
the development of CHC theory (Beaujean et al., 2014). Further, an
analysis that allows for differential age effects may shed light on dif-
ferences found across previous studies. Last, a focus on specific (as
opposed to broad) achievement areas should allow a more fine-grained
understanding of the cognitive influences on areas such as basic
reading, reading comprehension, basic math, math problem solving,
written expression, and fluency skills. Consequently, the current study
examined how CHC constructs measured by the WISC-V explain school-
age students' academic achievement in nine specific academic domains,
and whether these effects vary by age.
2. Effects of CHC cognitive abilities on academic achievement
Of the broad abilities delineated by CHC theory, five are likely
measured by the WISC-V: verbal comprehension/knowledge (Gc),
fluid/novel reasoning (Gf), visual processing (Gv), short-term memory
(Gsm), and processing speed (Gs; see Table 1 for definitions of these
abilities; Schneider & McGrew, 2012). Below, we review previous re-
search findings about which of these broad abilities affect achievement
in specific and broad areas of reading, math, and writing and which
effects show developmental differences.
3. Basic reading skills
Basic reading skills include decoding and word recognition skills.
Basic reading skills are likely influenced by multiple broad cognitive
abilities, which vary by age (Floyd et al., 2012; Niileksela et al., 2016).
Verbal comprehension/knowledge (Gc) has been shown to affect basic
reading skills throughout schooling (Cormier, McGrew, Bulut, &
Funamoto, 2017; Evans, Floyd, McGrew, & Leforgee, 2002; Floyd,
Keith, Taub, & McGrew, 2007; Garcia & Stafford, 2000; Hajovsky et al.,
2014; McGrew, 1993; Niileksela et al., 2016; Oh et al., 2004;
Vanderwood et al., 2002), with stronger effects at older ages (Cormier
et al., 2017; Hajovsky et al., 2014; McGrew, 1993), although one study
found Gc effects did not emerge until age 12 or 13 (Benson, 2007).
Short-term memory (Gsm) and processing speed (Gs) have been shown
to influence basic reading skills throughout schooling (Cormier et al.,
2017; Evans et al., 2002; Floyd et al., 2007; Hajovsky et al., 2014;
McGrew, 1993; Niileksela et al., 2016), but some of the findings are
contradictory and depend on the WJ test edition.
7
Intelligence 68 (2018) 6–20
4. Reading comprehension
Reading comprehension is the ability to construct meaning from
written text. As with basic reading skills, Gc has the strongest influence
on reading comprehension for students in grades 1–12 (Benson, 2007;
Evans et al., 2002; Floyd et al., 2012; Keith, 1999; McGrew, 1993;
McGrew, Flanagan, Keith, & Vanderwood, 1997; Niileksela et al., 2016;
Oh et al., 2004; Vanderwood et al., 2002). Gc's influence increases with
age (Cormier et al., 2017; Floyd et al., 2012; Hajovsky et al., 2014;
Keith, 1999; McGrew, 1993). Longitudinal research has shown Gc is a
leading indicator of growth in reading comprehension—increases in Gc
result in improved reading comprehension over time (Quinn, Wagner,
Petscher, & Lopez, 2015; Reynolds & Turek, 2012).
Previous research also suggests that Gs and Gsm are also directly or
indirectly related to reading comprehension, although the effects are
not as consistent across different ages (Cain, Oakhill, & Bryant, 2004;
Evans et al., 2002; Floyd et al., 2012; Hajovsky et al., 2014; McGrew,
1993) and depend on the edition of the WJ test (Niileksela et al., 2016).
Research across the three most recent editions of the WJ tests suggests
that fluid reasoning (Gf) has a moderate effect on reading compre-
hension beginning at a young age (Cormier et al., 2017; McGrew, 1993;
Niileksela et al., 2016) or in early adolescence (Evans et al., 2002).
Additionally, one study using the Kaufman Assessment Battery for
Children-Second Edition (KABC-II; Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004) found a
significant effect of visual processing (Gv) on reading comprehension in
grades 1–3 (Hajovsky et al., 2014), although no other studies have
found effects for Gv on reading comprehension.
5. Reading fluency
Reading fluency is the speed at which someone can read a written
passage with understanding. Little research has examined the cognitive
predictors of reading fluency. Existing research found that Gc and
processing speed have significant effects on reading rate (Benson, 2007;
Cormier et al., 2017; Niileksela et al., 2016). The effect of Gs on reading
fluency may increase with age. There is some suggestion that Gf exerts a
significant effect too, with a stronger influence among younger students
(Cormier et al., 2017).
6. Broad reading
The effects of cognitive abilities on broad reading achievement have
also been studied; such analyses involved achievement latent variables
that were measured by a combination of basic reading and reading
comprehension (Beaujean et al., 2014; Glutting et al., 2006; Oh et al.,
2004). Such analyses are focused on the aspects of reading shared in
common among all reading measures and not the specific components
of reading.1 Despite differences in the broad and specific reading con-
structs, Gc has also been shown to exert an important influence on
broad reading achievement using the Wechsler tests (Beaujean et al.,
2014; Glutting et al., 2006; Oh et al., 2004), as have Gsm and Gf
(Beaujean et al., 2014).
7. Basic math skills
Basic math skills include calculation and computation skills. Gs, Gc,
and Gf have been shown to influence basic math skills across studies
(Floyd, Evans, & McGrew, 2003;Keith, 1999; McGrew & Hessler, 1995;
Niileksela et al., 2016). Most studies have found consistent effects for
Gs across all school ages, but one found stronger effects from ages 5 to
11 (McGrew & Hessler, 1995). Further, Gc may exert a larger effect
after age 9 (Floyd et al., 2003; McGrew & Hessler, 1995). Gsm may also
1
The specific components could also be included in these models, but do not appear to
have been analyzed.
J.M. Caemmerer et al. Intelligence 68 (2018) 6–20

Table 1
Descriptions of the WISC-V broad abilities and subtests and WIAT-III subtests.

WISC-V

Verbal comprehension (Gc): Gc measures acquired cultural knowledge, including language and information learned inside and outside of school (also referred to as verbal/
comprehension knowledge).
Similarities The child must describe the similarities between two words that describe common objects or concepts.
Vocabulary The child must define given words or provide a name for a picture.
Comprehension The child answers questions based on general knowledge and social conventions.
Information The child is required to answer general knowledge questions.
Visual spatial (Gv): Gv is the ability to perceive visual information and mentally rotate images, identify patterns, or transform visual information (also referred to as
visual processing).
Block design The child replicates two-dimensional geometric patterns, under timed conditions, using blocks.
Visual puzzles The child is presented with images and must mentally manipulate them to form a complete picture.
Fluid reasoning (Gf): Gf involves problem solving using unfamiliar information or novel procedures that cannot be performed automatically.
Matrix reasoning The child is presented with a pattern and must select a response to complete the missing portion.
Figure weights The child is presented with a key and selects a response option that balances a scale.
Arithmetic The child is presented with arithmetic problems and must solve them mentally and quickly.
Picture concepts The child is presented with an array of pictures and selects pictures that represent a similar concept.
Working memory (Gsm): Gsm measures the ability to retain information in immediate awareness while manipulating the information (also referred to as short-term
memory).
Digit span The child is presented with a string of numbers and must recall the numbers in the same, reverse, or ascending sequence.
Picture span The child is shown pictures and then must recall those pictures in sequential order from a response page.
Letter-number sequencing The child is presented with a string of numbers and letters and must recall them in ascending and numerical order.
Processing speed (Gs): Gs measures the ability to quickly and accurately perform simple mental operations.
Coding The child is provided with a key and copies corresponding symbols under timed conditions.
Symbol search The child is presented with symbols and indicates whether target symbols are present under timed conditions.
Cancellation The child is shown arrays of pictures and must select target symbols under timed conditions.

WIAT-III

Math problem solving
Math fluency
Numerical operations
Oral reading fluency
Word reading
Pseudoword decoding
Reading comprehension
Spelling
Sentence composition
Essay composition
The child solves orally presented math word problems that may require multiple steps and may be related to time, money, measurement, geometry,
probability, or reading graphs.
The child answers simple addition, subtraction, and multiplication problems under timed conditions.
The child is required to solve written math problems involving addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division.
The child is required to accurately read passages aloud under timed conditions.
The child identifies letters, sounds, or reads words from a list.
The child reads nonwords from a list.
The child reads sentences or short passages and is then answers questions about the main idea, details, or is asked to make inferences.
The child is required to spell a word based on definitions and its use in a sentence which are presented orally.
The child must build sentences using target words and combine multiple sentences into one sentence while maintaining the meaning.
The child writes words, sentences, or a paragraph/short essay in response to prompts.

Note. Broad ability definitions are adapted from Schneider and McGrew (2012).

be related to basic math skills (Floyd et al., 2003; McGrew & Hessler,
1995), but the evidence is inconsistent across studies.
8. Math problem solving
Math problem solving is also referred to as math reasoning in the
literature and typically involves word problems and the application of
math operations and concepts (McGrew & Wendling, 2010). Research
suggests that math problem solving skills, like basic math skills, are
affected by Gf, Gc, and Gs at all ages (Keith, 1999; McGrew & Hessler,
1995; Niileksela et al., 2016). Gs exerts moderate effects throughout
schooling (Floyd et al., 2003; Niileksela et al., 2016) and the effects of
Gc and Gf on math problem solving appear to steadily increase with age
(Floyd et al., 2003; McGrew & Hessler, 1995). Gf factors are often
difficult to separate from g, and thus it is also difficult to separate the
effects of these two cognitive abilities on math problem solving (and
other outcomes) (cf., Gustafsson & Balke, 1993; Hajovsky et al., 2014).
Gsm appears to have a moderate effect on math problem solving pri-
marily at earlier ages (Floyd et al., 2003; McGrew & Hessler, 1995).
Some researchers have observed effects of Gv on math problem solving
at earlier ages, such as 5–10 (McGrew & Hessler, 1995), and others have
found significant effects through all school-age groups (Niileksela et al.,
2016).
9. Math fluency
Math fluency refers to how quickly someone can complete simple math
operations and is typically measured by timed tests of simple addition,
subtraction, multiplication, and division. One study tested whether Gs
influenced math fluency, after accounting for the influence of basic math
skills on math fluency, and found a significant effect (Niileksela et al.,
2016). Other research analyzed a composite that combined math fluency
and basic math skills (e.g., Floyd et al., 2003). Therefore, research that
exclusively focuses on math fluency is much needed.
10. Broad math achievement
Other research conceptualized math achievement more broadly and
examined a latent variable that included both math problem solving
and math calculation skills (Ferrer & McArdle, 2004; Glutting et al.,
2006; Parkin & Beaujean, 2012; Taub, Keith, Floyd, & McGrew, 2008),
but their results are inconsistent. Gf tends to emerge as an important
influence on broad math achievement (Ferrer & McArdle, 2004; Parkin
& Beaujean, 2012; Taub et al., 2008). In fact, longitudinal research
suggests that Gf leads to changes in broad math achievement, and not
vice versa (Ferrer & McArdle, 2004). One study, however, did not
support the importance of Gf (Glutting et al., 2006). Similar to the
specific math skills, Gc also exerted significant effects on broad math
achievement (Glutting et al., 2006; Taub et al., 2008), and there is some
support for the importance of Gs (Taub et al., 2008).

8
J.M. Caemmerer et al.
11. Basic writing skills
Basic writing skills include spelling and editing. Compared to
reading and math, much less research has examined the effects of
cognitive abilities on writing skills. Previous research suggests that
basic writing skills are well-predicted by Gc across the lifespan
(Niileksela et al., 2016), with moderate to strong effects (Cormier,
Bulut, McGrew, & Frison, 2016; Floyd, McGrew, & Evans, 2008). Si-
milarly, Gs and Gsm both appear to have a moderate effect on basic
writing skills throughout schooling (Cormier et al., 2016; Floyd et al.,
2008; Niileksela et al., 2016). In contrast, Gf may exert stronger effects
on the basic writing skills of younger students (Cormier et al., 2016;
McGrew & Knopik, 1993), or may not exert significant effects until age
15 (Floyd et al., 2008), depending on the edition of the WJ.
12. Written expression
Written expression is the ability to express ideas in writing. Gs is the
only broad ability found to significantly affect written expression in all
previous studies using the WJ tests (Cormier et al., 2016; Floyd et al.,
2008; McGrew & Knopik, 1993; Niileksela et al., 2016), but this finding
may be due to the inclusion of a writing fluency subtest within the WJ
written expression factor. Thus, the effect of Gs on written expression,
without the influence of a fluency subtest, should be studied further to
isolate which cognitive abilities are most important for written ex-
pression specifically. Research examining earlier editions of the WJ
tests suggest Gc (Floyd et al., 2008; McGrew & Knopik, 1993) affects
written expression throughout schooling, but an effect of Gc on written
expression was not observed using the newly-revised fourth edition of
the WJ (WJ IV;Cormier et al., 2016; Niileksela et al., 2016). As with
basic writing skills, Gf appears to affect written expression, but this
effect is inconsistent across ages and studies (Cormier et al., 2016; Floyd
et al., 2008; McGrew & Knopik, 1993). Research with the WJ Revised
and WJ Third Edition found significant effects of Gsm on written ex-
pression for different age groups (Floyd et al., 2008; McGrew & Knopik,
1993), but research with the WJ IV found a weak to non-significant
effect (Cormier et al., 2016; Niileksela et al., 2016). It is notable that the
WJ IV focuses more on measures of working memory than on short-
term memory. Gv has typically been unrelated to writing achievement
in WJ research (McGrew & Knopik, 1993), but one study examining the
WJ IV found a significant effect for visual processing for ages 6–18
(Niileksela et al., 2016). Similar to the KABC-II reading comprehension
study, Gv, as measured by the KABC-II, had a significant moderate sized
effect on written expression for students in grades 1–12 (Hajovsky et al.,
in press). Further, the KABC-II study found a large Gc effect on written
expression for students in grades 5–12, but the effect for those in grades
1–4 was too small to be considered meaningful. Gsm had a small in-
fluence across grades. The KABC-II does not measure Gs and the in-
fluence of Gf was not tested separately from g in this study due to a
perfect correlation between the two cognitive abilities (Hajovsky et al.,
in press).
13. Broad writing achievement
To date, two studies (Beaujean et al., 2014; Hajovsky et al., in press)
examined cognitive abilities' effects on writing using a test other than
the WJ batteries. In addition to the KABC-II study (Hajovsky et al., in
press), the other non-WJ study examined the WISC-IV and the re-
searchers created a composite writing score that combined basic
writing and written expression. This study found that Gc, Gsm, Gs, and
Gf were all significant predictors of broad writing achievement, so there
does seem to be some consistency across tests (Beaujean et al., 2014).
14. Effects of general intelligence on achievement
Students with higher general intelligence (g) tend to perform better
9
Intelligence 68 (2018) 6–20
academically across all areas of achievement (Kaufman, Reynolds, Liu,
Kaufman, & McGrew, 2012). In cognitive-achievement models with g as
the only predictor, g has a large direct effect on students' latent reading,
math, and writing abilities as well as specific test performance (e.g.,
Glutting et al., 2006;Niileksela et al., 2016; Taub et al., 2008). A gen-
eral intelligence factor also accounts for a large amount of variance in
students' school grades (Gustafsson & Balke, 1993). When higher-order
CHC models of general and broad cognitive abilities are used in cog-
nitive-achievement models, g effects on academic achievement are
often indirect (mediated) via the CHC broad abilities (e.g., Floyd et al.,
2012; Hajovsky et al., 2014; Niileksela et al., 2016). In higher-order
CHC models of intelligence, which are the focus of this study, g and the
broad abilities are interdependent and influence academic achievement
simultaneously. For example, g affects important broad abilities such as
Gc, Ga, and Gs, which in turn affect reading skills (Floyd et al., 2012;
Niileksela et al., 2016). Studies have also found important indirect ef-
fects of g via broad abilities on math and writing achievement
(Niileksela et al., 2016; Taub et al., 2008). This study will examine both
the direct and indirect effects of g on specific achievement skills using a
higher-order CHC model of intelligence.
15. Purpose
There were three main purposes of this study. The first purpose was
to determine whether findings from previous cognitive-achievement
studies are generalizable to the recently revised WISC-V and the
Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, Third Edition (WIAT-III).
Cognitive-achievement relations that do not generalize across different
tests or revisions of the same test may be due to each test's particular
task demands. Thus, if discrepant findings exist across tests, inter-
pretations of those cognitive-achievement relations should be based on
evidence derived from the specific test under study. The second purpose
was to contribute to the cognitive-achievement developmental differ-
ences literature. Although previous research has often found develop-
mental changes in many cognitive-achievement effects, these studies
have generally used qualitative comparisons of the magnitude of effects
across ages rather than statistical tests for differences in effects by age.
Here we will expand on previous research by examining whether cog-
nitive-achievement effects are significantly moderated by age, while
leaving age in its continuous format. The third purpose was to examine
the effects of cognitive abilities on specific achievement skills, rather
than broad achievement. The specific versus broad achievement dis-
tinction is important because specific achievement skills are more
consistent with the specific learning disability definitions utilized in
schools (Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act,
2004); the development of more general achievement skills are likely
contingent on the acquisition of specific skills. Therefore, our findings
will provide empirical evidence that can be used to guide educational
decisions. In this study, age-referenced standardized subtest scores were
analyzed instead of composite scores, for both the WISC-V and WIAT-
III. The composites used in the scoring structure of the WIAT-III com-
bine multiple specific achievement skills into one total score that ob-
scures any difference in effects across the different achievement skills in
each broad area, whereas the use of the subtest scores allows for dif-
ferentiation of the effects according to the specific achievement skills.
It is worth noting that this study—like previous research on this
topic—is non-experimental in nature; experimental manipulation of
cognitive abilities to determine their effect on achievement skills is
impossible. Therefore, all statements that discuss the “effect” or “in-
fluence” of one variable on another or focus on variables that “explain”
an outcome are dependent on the validity of the models tested. In other
words, if the model is a reasonable representation of reality, the esti-
mates resulting from the model show the extent of the influence of one
variable on another. If the models are not a reasonable representation
of reality, the estimates are not accurate estimates of those effects
(Keith, 2015).
J.M. Caemmerer et al.
Fig. 1. Cognitive-achievement model.
16. Method
Participants were drawn from the WISC-V and WIAT-III (N = 181)
co-norming sample. Students ranged in age from 6 to 16 (M = 11.82,
SD = 3.07; 6–9 year olds n = 48, 10–13 year olds n = 71, and
14–16 year olds n = 62). In the current study age was a continuous
variable measured in years. Participants were 55% male and 50% of the
sample was Caucasian, 21% was Hispanic, 20% was African American,
7% was “Other,” and 2% was Asian. The education level of participants'
parents (measured in number of years of schooling) ranged from 11%
with 11 years or less, 25% with 12 years, 35% with 13–15 years, and
30% with 16 years or more. The mean testing interval between the
WISC-V and WIAT-III administration was 16 days.
16.1. Measures
The WISC-V is an individually administered intelligence test de-
signed for children and youth ages six through 16 years 11 months old.
The WISC-V is a recent revision of the test and includes three new
primary subtests and a different intelligence factor structure than pre-
vious versions. In the fifth edition the previous Perceptual Reasoning
Index is separated into Fluid Reasoning (Gf) and Visual Spatial (Gv)
Indexes. Thus, the WISC-V is designed to measure five factors and is
more consistent with CHC theory than previous editions. See Table 1 for
descriptions of each subtest. Item-level data were not available; there-
fore, reliability estimates were taken from the tests' technical manuals
(Wechsler, 2014). Overall the 16 WISC-V subtest scores evidenced high
reliability. The average test-retest reliability coefficients across the
WISC-V subtests ranged from 0.72 to 0.91 in the standardization
sample. In terms of internal consistency, the average split-half relia-
bility coefficients across ages ranged from 0.80 to 0.96 (Wechsler,
2014). Raw scores on the WISC-V subtests are converted to age-stan-
dardized scores, which were used in this study. The new version of the
test has been generally well-received (Benson, 2017; Keith, 2017;
Reynolds & Hadorn, 2016).
10
Intelligence 68 (2018) 6–20
The WIAT-III (Wechsler, 2009) is an individually administered
achievement test with an age range that spans young childhood through
adulthood. In this analysis we focused on ten subtests that measure
reading, writing, and mathematics achievement. See Table 1 for the
names and descriptions of each subtest. Most of the subtests were ad-
ministered to all children in the sample with the exception of Essay
Composition, which was not administered to six- and seven-year-olds.
The ten WIAT-III subtests also showed high reliability estimates in the
standardization sample. The average test-retest coefficients, across
grades, for the Math Fluency, Oral Reading Fluency, Sentence Com-
position, and Essay Composition subtests ranged from 0.87 to 0.95.
Average split-half reliability estimates were available for the other
subtests and ranged from 0.88 to 0.97 (Breaux, 2010). As with the
cognitive scores, age-standardized achievement scores were used in this
study.
16.2. Analysis steps
Following data preparation, Mplus (Muthén & Muthén, 2012) ver-
sion 7 was used to analyze the structural equation models (SEM) and
test for interactions. Mplus handles missing data through the Full In-
formation Maximum Likelihood (FIML) procedure. Currently, FIML is a
strongly recommended procedure for handling missing data (Enders,
2010; Enders & Bandalos, 2001; Schafer & Graham, 2002). Amos ver-
sion 21 (Arbuckle, 2012) was used to impute the latent broad ability
and achievement values for the purposes of post-hoc graphing and in-
terpretation of statistically significant interactions. (This process is
described in detail below.)
16.3. Cognitive-achievement models
SEM was used to test whether CHC cognitive constructs affect aca-
demic achievement. SEM was used to more closely approximate effects
at the construct, as opposed to the scale-specific, level. The WISC-V
scoring model was used to model intelligence and included g and five
J.M. Caemmerer et al.
CHC broad cognitive abilities factors. One slight revision to the scoring
model was made. A cross-loading from the Arithmetic subtest to Gf and
Gsm was included, as indicated in the test manual (Wechsler, 2014),
because Arithmetic may measure both abilities. These factors were in-
dicated by 16 WISC-V subtests in our analysis. Each CHC broad cog-
nitive ability factor was indicated by two to four subtests (see Fig. 1 for
specifics).
In higher-order CHC cognitive models, the general intelligence
factor, g, is at the apex of the model. In our CHC cognitive model g
influenced each of the five broad abilities. In turn, the five broad
abilities influenced the WISC-V subtests. Thus, g and the broad abilities
are interrelated and operate together rather than independently. In this
model the effects of g on the individual subtest performance levels were
indirect and mediated by the broad abilities. We tested for both direct
and indirect effects of g for each achievement outcome. Both methods
(with and without direct effects for g) control for g, but the inclusion of
these two models tests whether g has direct as well as indirect effects on
achievement outcomes. Finally, the unique effects of the broad abilities
on the achievement outcomes (with the effects of g statistically re-
moved) were also calculated using the residuals of the broad ability
factors.
The CHC cognitive model was used to explain reading, math, and
writing achievement outcomes. We refer to these models with the
achievement factors as cognitive-achievement models. Nine cognitive-
achievement models were analyzed. Each academic achievement do-
main—reading, math, and writing—was represented by three separate
models. The three reading models included 1) Basic Reading (measured
by Pseudoword Decoding and Word Reading, which were strongly
correlated [r = 0.76]), 2) Reading Comprehension, and 3) Oral Reading
Fluency. The three mathematics models included 1) Numerical
Operations, 2) Math Problem Solving, and 3) Math Fluency. The three
writing models included Spelling and two separate written expression
models (measured by Sentence Composition and Essay Composition,
respectively). The two written expression subtests were analyzed se-
parately because of different task demands (see Table 1), and because
their correlation was not considered strong. Across all nine models, the
parameters of interest were the paths from each broad ability and g to
the achievement variable.
With the exception of basic reading (which was estimated by two
subtests), the specific achievement skills were estimated by one mea-
sured variable each. Thus, eight single-indicator achievement latent
variables were estimated. In order to test a single-indicator latent
variable, a constraint was required to address model under-
identification. Specifically, the variance of the subtest was constrained
to the value of the subtest's unreliability (calculated as one minus the
reliability of the measure, as reported in the WIAT-III manual [Breaux,
2010], multiplied by its variance). The advantage of this technique over
the use of the measured variable alone is that these single-indicator
latent variables take into account the unreliability of each subtest
(Keith, 2015, chap. 15).
16.4. Testing cognitive-achievement effects
Analyses were completed in a series of steps. The direct effect of g on
each specific achievement skill was tested in g direct effect only models.
In these models, only a path from g to the specific achievement skill was
tested; no paths from the broad abilities were included. Next, paths
from both the broad abilities and g were tested (referred to as broad
ability plus g indirect models). In these models, paths were initially tested
from all broad abilities to each achievement variable. Next, negative
and non-significant paths were deleted one at a time. The largest ne-
gative paths were deleted first one at a time. If any non-significant paths
remained, those were deleted one at a time beginning with the smallest
standardized path. Once only statistically significant paths remained, a
path was added from g to the achievement skill. If the path from g to the
achievement skill was statistically significant, the path was retained in
11
Intelligence 68 (2018) 6–20
the final model. This backward elimination analysis approach is similar
to the methods used in previous cognitive-achievement research (Floyd
et al., 2007; Niileksela et al., 2016; Taub et al., 2008). Lastly, we cal-
culated the effects on achievement of the broad abilities with g statis-
tically removed from those abilities (unique effects). These effects were
calculated using the broad ability plus g indirect models. The indirect
effects from the residuals of the broad abilities (referred to as r1, r2, etc.
in Fig. 1) were multiplied by the direct paths of the broad abilities to the
achievement outcomes. For example, in the Numerical Operations
model the unique effect of Gs was calculated by multiplying 0.88 and
0.21 (see Fig. 1). This approach is conceptually similar to a bifactor
analysis in that it estimates the unique effects of the broad abilities on
achievement with the effects of g statistically removed or partialled out
(Reynolds & Keith, 2017).
The fit of single models was assessed using chi-squared (χ2) com-
pared to degrees of freedom, the root mean square error of approx-
imation (RMSEA), the comparative fit index (CFI), and the standardized
root mean square residual (SRMR; Hu & Bentler, 1999). Across all nine
achievement skills, the broad ability plus g indirect and g direct effect only
models were compared using the Akaike Information Index (AIC);
smaller values are indicative of better model fit (Keith, 2015).
16.5. Testing age-broad cognitive ability moderated effects
To test for developmental differences in CHC broad abilities effects
on achievement, interactions between age (a continuous measured
variable) and each latent broad ability variable were tested to de-
termine if the broad abilities affected performance in each academic
domain differentially depending on age. In previous research, re-
searchers accounted for developmental differences by dividing partici-
pants into several age groups that each spanned two to six years. Then,
paths from the broad abilities to achievement skills were separately
tested for each age group (Benson, 2007; Floyd et al., 2007; Floyd et al.,
2012; Hajovsky et al., 2014; Keith, 1999; Niileksela et al., 2016; Taub
et al., 2008; Vanderwood et al., 2002). Thus, other than Hajovsky et al.
(2014) and Niileksela et al. (2016), who used multi-group models to
test for statistically significant differences across age groups, compar-
isons across ages have been qualitative rather than statistical. In addi-
tion, the creation of age groups treats the continuous variable age as a
categorical variable. Here, we instead analyzed age effects using a
continuous age variable and we tested statistical interactions because
this strategy allowed for a quantitative test of potential age differences.
This is the first study to test these developmental differences by ana-
lyzing age as a continuous variable. This statistical interaction strategy
also allowed testing for developmental differences even with a rela-
tively small sample size.
Interactions were tested using a cross-product strategy which in-
volved multiplying age with the broad ability under investigation. This
strategy is accomplished via the “XWITH” procedure in Mplus and does
not require centering (Maslowsky, Jager, & Hemken, 2015). The cross-
product/interaction term is then regressed on the achievement skill. Each
interaction model also included direct effects from the age variable and
the broad ability used to create the cross-product (i.e., conditional slopes)
on the achievement skill, regardless of the statistical significance of these
paths. In addition, results from the previous step of the analysis informed
the interaction models because paths from each statistically significant
CHC broad ability to the achievement skill were also included in each
interaction model. Thus, we tested whether an interaction between age
and each broad ability was statistically significant after controlling for all
other significant predictors of that achievement skill. Because this is the
first time interactions between age and the broad abilities have been
analyzed using a cross-product strategy, and because it is possible for
interactions to exist without statistically significant paths in the previous
step, each potential interaction between a broad ability and age was
tested for all of the nine achievement skills. Interaction terms were tested
one at a time in each model.
J.M. Caemmerer et al. Intelligence 68 (2018) 6–20

Table 2
Descriptive statistics for WISC-V and WIAT-III subtest scores.

Subtest Factor M SD Min Max Skew Ku % Miss

Similarities Gc 9.93 2.46 2 16 −0.02 −0.01 0

Vocabulary Gc 9.98 2.63 1 17 −0.09 0.03 0
Information Gc 9.96 2.53 3 17 0.29 −0.13 0
Comprehension Gc 10.26 2.54 4 17 0.20 −0.63 0
Block design Gv 10.12 2.69 4 17 0.01 −0.42 0
Visual puzzles Gv 10.08 2.71 4 17 0.02 −0.66 0
Matrix reasoning Gf 10.13 2.71 3 17 0.22 −0.42 0
Figure weights Gf 9.90 2.67 4 16 −0.26 −0.10 0
Picture concepts Gf 10.18 3.08 1 17 −0.09 −0.23 0
Arithmetic Gf/Gsm 10.12 2.64 4 17 0.03 −0.32 0
Digit span Gsm 9.98 2.67 4 19 0.38 0.26 1
Picture span Gsm 9.71 2.61 4 15 −0.03 −0.69 0
Letter-number seq. Gsm 10.00 2.70 4 16 0.15 −0.46 0
Coding Gs 10.01 2.76 3 19 0.17 0.02 0
Symbol search Gs 9.99 3.12 1 19 0.14 0.62 0
Cancellation Gs 10.27 2.85 3 18 0.28 0.09 0
Word reading BR 101.03 11.27 63 127 −0.51 0.28 3
Pseudoword decoding BR 101.37 12.56 58 133 −0.26 0.44 3
Reading comprehension – 102.15 13.00 58 148 0.40 1.70 2
Oral reading fluency – 102.90 12.09 59 137 −0.00 0.75 2
Numerical operations – 100.78 12.18 59 130 −0.07 −0.08 0
Math problem solving – 100.76 12.04 70 133 0.18 −0.41 0
Math fluency – 100.11 13.23 71 133 0.23 −0.57 2
Spelling – 100.20 12.89 65 127 0.00 −0.58 0
Sentence composition – 99.59 12.86 68 140 −0.11 −0.08 1
Essay composition – 100.75 15.77 57 141 −0.15 −0.46 17

Note. Ku = Kurtosis, % Miss = percent of missing data, Gc = Verbal/comprehension knowledge, Gv = Visual processing, Gf = Fluid reasoning, Gsm = Short-term memory,
Gs = Processing speed, and BR = Basic reading.

Table 3
Fit indices of all models.

Model name χ2 df p CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR AIC

1. Basic reading 147.634 127 0.102 0.980 0.976 0.030 0.053 15,779.417
g direct effect only 164.710 128 0.016 0.965 0.958 0.040 0.057 15,794.493
2. Reading comprehension 124.751 114 0.231 0.988 0.986 0.023 0.050 14,606.609
g direct effect only 131.664 113 0.111 0.979 0.975 0.030 0.052 14,615.522
3. Oral reading fluency 130.552 113 0.124 0.980 0.976 0.029 0.054 14,594.123
g direct effect only 144.701 113 0.024 0.964 0.956 0.039 0.056 14,608.272
4. Numerical operations 125.455 112 0.182 0.985 0.981 0.026 0.051 14,616.551
g direct effect only 130.467 113 0.125 0.980 0.976 0.029 0.052 14,619.564
5. Math problem solving 140.517 113 0.041 0.970 0.964 0.037 0.052 14,574.800
g direct effect only 140.920 114 0.044 0.971 0.965 0.036 0.052 14,573.203
6. Math fluency 145.806 113 0.021 0.964 0.957 0.040 0.056 14,601.262
g direct effect only 172.114 114 < 0.001 0.936 0.924 0.053 0.062 14,625.851
7. Spelling 127.375 113 0.168 0.984 0.981 0.027 0.052 14,607.542
g direct effect only 144.326 113 0.025 0.966 0.959 0.039 0.054 14,624.493
8. Sentence composition 120.277 112 0.280 0.990 0.988 0.020 0.050 14,632.693
g direct effect only 126.490 113 0.182 0.984 0.981 0.026 0.051 14,636.906
9. Essay composition 124.066 113 0.224 0.987 0.984 0.023 0.052 14,498.075
g direct effect only 124.227 114 0.241 0.988 0.985 0.022 0.052 14,496.236

Note. The fit of the broad ability plus g indirect models is listed first for each achievement skill.

17. Results 17.2. Missing data

17.1. Descriptives
Descriptive statistics for the subtests are presented in Table 2. The
means and standard deviations of the subtest standard scores were
consistent with those of the norming sample. As evidenced in Table 2,
both the WIAT-III and WISC-V data were normally distributed. Skew-
ness and kurtosis values were within the acceptable ranges; absolute
values of skewness ranged from 0.00 to 0.51 and kurtosis ranged from
0.01 to 1.70, well below suggested cut-off points for univariate nor-
mality (Curran, West, & Finch, 1996). The assumption of multivariate
normality was tested via two-sided Mardia's tests of multivariate skew
and kurtosis (p = 0.09 and p = 0.56, respectively). The results of
Mardia's tests did not suggest a violation of the assumption.
Minimal missing data were present in this sample and ranged from
0% for the majority of subtests to 3% for Word Reading and
Pseudoword Decoding (see Table 2 for missing data percentages by
subtest). Essay Composition was an exception, however, because 17%
of the sample was missing data on this subtest. Children under age eight
are not administered Essay Composition, however, and there were 18
children under age eight in our sample. The assumption that data from
all 26 subtests were missing completely at random was tested via Little's
Missing Completely at Random Test (MCAR). The results support the
conclusion the data were MCAR (χ2 = 240.84, df = 213, p = 0.09).

12
J.M. Caemmerer et al. Intelligence 68 (2018) 6–20

17.3. Cognitive-achievement relations Table 5

Unique effects of the CHC broad abilities (g removed) and direct (g direct effect only
models) and indirect effects of g (broad ability plus g indirect models) on achievement
All of the cognitive-achievement models fit the data well (see
skills.
Table 3 for the fit indices for all models). All fit indices were within the
acceptable ranges: RMSEA ranged from 0.02 to 0.04, CFI ranged from Achievement skill Gc Gf Gsm Gs Gv g direct g indirect
0.97 to 0.99, TLI from 0.96 to 0.99, and SRMR from 0.05 to 0.06. Chi-
1. Basic reading 0.23 – 0.28 – – 0.61 0.52
square was non-significant for the majority of the broad ability plus g
2. Reading comprehension 0.41 – – – – 0.65 0.51
indirect models, but chi-square was more frequently significant in the g 3. Oral reading fluency 0.26 – – 0.23 – 0.51 0.42
direct effect only models. Overall, the cognitive-achievement models 4. Numerical operations – .05b – 0.18 – 0.61 0.57
were supported. 5. Math problem solving – .20b – – – 0.76* 0.74
The g direct effect only and broad ability plus g indirect models were 6. Math fluency – – 0.31 0.32 – 0.58* 0.45
7. Spelling 0.21 – 0.34 – – 0.68 0.55
compared. The AIC indicated that the broad ability plus g indirect models
8. Sentence composition 0.17 – 0.26 – – 0.55 0.44
fit the data better, with two exceptions. The g direct effect only models fit 9. Essay composition – .11b – – – 0.42* 0.42
the Math Problem Solving and Essay Composition models slightly
better. Thus, the better fitting models, the broad ability plus g indirect Note. The g direct column shows the effect of g from a model in which there are no broad
models and the two g direct effect only models, are interpreted in detail ability effects (g direct effect only models). The g indirect column shows the indirect and
total effect of g in a model which includes effects from the broad abilities (broad ability
below.
plus g indirect models). Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05. Non-significant
Of greatest interest were paths from g and the latent broad abilities effects are italicized and denoted with b. Asterisks denote models in which the residual for
to the nine latent achievement skill variables. These paths provided Gf was negative and not statistically significant. In these models, the Gf residual was
evidence for the nature and magnitude of the effects of cognitive abil- constrained to zero, which suggests that the effects of g and Gf were indistinguishable.
ities on a particular achievement skill (see Table 4 for all of the sta-
tistically significant CHC broad ability-achievement paths and Table 5 influence of g was removed (see Table 5 for the unique and g direct and
for the unique broad ability effects [with the effects of g removed] and indirect effects).
direct and indirect effects of g).

17.5. Mathematics
17.4. Reading
Across the math models, the effects of the broad abilities varied
In the reading achievement domain, Gc had statistically significant according to math skill (refer to Table 4). Effects of Gf on Math Problem
and large effects (using the criteria in Keith, 2015, chap 4) on all three Solving and Numerical Operations were statistically significant and
reading skills: Basic Reading, Reading Comprehension, and Oral large. Across the broad ability plus g indirect models, the largest effect
Reading Fluency. The largest standardized effect was from Gc to was from Gf to Math Problem Solving (b = 7.09; β = 0.77, SE = 0.05,
Reading Comprehension (b = 4.40; β = 0.65, SE = 0.06, p < 0.001), p < 0.001), such that a standard deviation increase in Gf resulted in a
which means that each standard deviation increase in Gc resulted in a 0.77 standard deviation increase in Math Problem Solving, ceteris
0.65 standard deviation increase in Reading Comprehension, control- paribus. Similarly, the direct effect of g (g direct effect only model) on
ling for the other variables in the model. In addition, Gsm had a sta- Math Problem Solving (b = 6.85; β = 0.76, SE = 0.05, p < 0.001; see
tistically significant effect on Basic Reading (b = 2.05; β = 0.39, Table 5) was approximately equivalent to the effect of Gf in the broad
SE = 0.10, p < 0.001) and Gs influenced Oral Reading Fluency ability plus g indirect model (see Table 4). It is worth noting, however,
(b = 1.41; β = 0.26, SE = 0.08, p < 0.01); both showed moderate ef- that it was difficult to separate Gf and g in both the broad ability plus g
fect sizes. A path from g to each reading skill was added in each of the indirect and g direct effect only Math Problem Solving models, and thus
three broad ability plus g indirect models, but none was statistically their effects are statistically indistinguishable. Additionally, Gs influ-
significant. Instead, g exerted large and statistically significant indirect enced both Numerical Operations (b = 1.14; β = 0.21, SE = 0.09,
effects across all three broad ability plus g indirect reading models (the g p < 0.05) and Math Fluency (b = 2.04; β = 0.36, SE = 0.08,
effects are shown in Table 5). The unique effects of the significant broad p < 0.001) with large effect sizes. Finally, Gsm was statistically sig-
abilities described above on the three reading skills were smaller in nificantly related to one math skill, Math Fluency, and the effect was
magnitude, but moderately sized and statistically significant when the large (b = 2.60; β = 0.42, SE = 0.08, p < 0.001). As with the reading
skills, the effects of g on each math skill were indirect and large in the
Table 4 broad ability plus g indirect models (see Table 5). In addition, the unique
Significant standardized effects from CHC cognitive broad abilities to achievement skills effects of Gs on Numerical Operations and Math Fluency and Gsm on
(broad ability plus g indirect models). Math Fluency were smaller in magnitude when the effect of g was
partialled out, but remained moderately sized and statistically sig-
Achievement Skill Gc Gf Gsm Gs Gv
nificant. The unique effects of Gf on Numerical Operations and Math
1. Basic reading 0.34 – 0.39 – – Problem Solving, however, were weaker and not statistically significant
2. Reading comprehension 0.65 * –a – – (see Table 5). This finding is consistent with not being able to statisti-
3. Oral reading fluency 0.40a *,a – 0.26 –a
cally distinguish the g and Gf factors.
4. Numerical operations – 0.48 – 0.21 –
5. Math problem solving – 0.77 –a –a –
6. Math fluency – * 0.42 0.36 –
17.6. Writing
7. Spelling 0.31 * 0.46 – –
8. Sentence composition 0.25 – 0.36a – –
9. Essay composition – 0.43 –a – – Effects of Gc and Gsm on Spelling and Sentence Composition were
statistically significant and large. The largest effect across the writing
Note. Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05. Asterisks denote models in which models was from Gsm to Spelling (b = 2.71; β = 0.46, SE = 0.08,
the residual for Gf was negative and not statistically significant. In these models, the Gf
p < 0.001), such that an increase of one standard deviation in Gsm led
residual was constrained to zero, which suggests that the effects of g and Gf were indis-
to an increase of 0.46 standard deviation in Spelling, other things being
tinguishable.
a
Subsequent analyses show that these broad ability effects vary by age; see Fig. 2. equal. Only one broad ability, Gf, had a significant path to Essay
Thus, the direct effects of Gc on Oral Reading Fluency and Gsm on Sentence Composition Composition (b = 4.78; β = 0.43, SE = 0.09, p < 0.001); this effect
depend on age. was also large. The direct effect of g (g direct effect only model) on Essay

13
J.M. Caemmerer et al.
Composition (b = 4.71; β = 0.42, SE = 0.09, p < 0.001; see Table 5)
was approximately equivalent to the effect of Gf in the broad ability plus
g indirect model (see Table 4). The effects of Gf and g on Essay Com-
position were statistically indistinguishable in both the broad ability plus
g indirect and g direct effect only models. As in the reading and math
models, g exerted significant indirect and large effects on each of the
three writing skills (broad ability plus g indirect models; see Table 5). The
unique effects of Gc and Gsm on Spelling and Sentence Composition
were smaller, but remained moderately sized and statistically sig-
nificant after the effect of g was removed. Similar to the math results,
Gf's unique effect on Essay Composition was especially weakened and
not statistically significant (see Table 5).
17.7. Gf versus g
As already noted, Gf and g were very closely related in many
models, as has often been found in previous research (cf., Gustafsson &
Balke, 1993; Hajovsky et al., 2014; Hajovsky et al., in press). That is,
the standardized loading of Gf on g approached one in most models, and
the residual variance of the Gf factor was very small and non-significant
in all nine models (which was not the case for the four other broad
abilities). The non-significant Gf residual suggests g completely explains
the variance in Gf, and that the two constructs are statistically re-
dundant, although the constructs themselves are not necessarily re-
dundant (cf. Reynolds & Keith, 2017). Additionally, in four broad ability
plus g indirect models (Reading Comprehension, Oral Reading Fluency,
Math Fluency, and Spelling) the residual variance value was negative
and non-significant (with an accompanying standardized factor loading
for Gf greater than one). When this occurred, we constrained the Gf
residual variance to zero and compared the fit of the two models2; in all
cases the fit did not degrade to a statistically significant degree
(meaning it was reasonable to assume the value of the Gf residual is
zero). With this constraint, however, Gf was essentially collapsed onto
g, and the two were statistically indistinguishable. It is also worth
noting that even when it was possible to separate g and Gf, their effects
were quite similar.
17.8. Interactions with age
Eight statistically significant interactions between age and the broad
abilities on achievement were found. Half of the statistically significant
interactions involved Gsm. All interactions were statistically significant
after controlling for the direct effects of age, the broad ability that
created the cross-product, and the other broad abilities that exerted
significant direct effects on each achievement skill (for a list of such
effects see Table 4). Thus, some of the cognitive effects that were in-
terpreted as main effects above should be interpreted as conditional
slopes (Gc on Oral Reading Fluency and Gsm on Sentence Composi-
tion): the effects depend on age.
After controlling for other significant cognitive influences, age
moderated the effect of three broad abilities on Oral Reading Fluency:
AgeXGf (b = −0.510, SE = 0.234, p < 0.05), AgeXGv (b = −0.384,
SE = 0.153, p < 0.05), and AgeXGc (b = −0.344, SE = 0.167,
p < 0.05). There was a significant interaction between age and Gsm on
four achievement skills: Reading Comprehension (b = −0.311,
SE = 0.143, p < 0.05), Sentence Composition (b = −0.346,
SE = 0.149, p < 0.05), Essay Composition (b = −0.524, SE = 0.255,
p < 0.05), and Math Problem Solving (b = −0.265, SE = 0.085,
p < 0.05). And finally, age also moderated the effect of Gs on Math
2
In supplemental analyses the Gf residual was constrained to zero in the five other
models (Basic Reading, Numerical Operations, Math Problem Solving, Sentence
Composition, and Essay Composition) for consistency purposes. This modification did not
influence the results and the significant broad ability coefficients values remained iden-
tical or shifted slightly by one hundredth. The first author can be contacted for those
results.
14
Intelligence 68 (2018) 6–20
Problem Solving (b = −0.196, SE = 0.093, p < 0.05).
The eight statistically significant interactions were graphed to ease
interpretation. For illustrative purposes only, the continuous age variable
was divided into three age groups: 6–9 year olds, 10–13 year olds, and
14–16 year olds. These age groups were selected because they are
consistent with previous research (e.g., Keith, 1999) and resulted in
relatively similar group sizes (n = 48, 71, and 62 respectively). Slightly
different age groups were used to graph the Essay Composition inter-
action because the subtest is not administered to six- and seven-year-
olds. Instead, students were divided into groups of 8–10 years,
11–13 years, and 14–16 years (n = 48, 53, and 62 respectively) for the
Essay Composition interaction graph. Because these interactions in-
volved a measured (age) and latent variable (broad ability), imputation
was used to estimate each latent variable (calculated via Amos version
21 using maximum likelihood estimation). These imputed values were
used for graphing purposes only. The imputed broad ability values were
graphed along with the measured variables of age and achievement
performance and the resulting slopes for the three age groups were
interpreted.3
17.9. Reading
As shown in Fig. 2A, higher levels of Gv were associated with higher
levels of Oral Reading Fluency for youth ages 6 to 9 and 10 to 13 (solid
line and wide dashed line, respectively); however, there was little or no
Gv influence on Oral Reading Fluency (e.g., a flat slope) for the oldest
adolescents, those ages 14 to 16 (short dashed line). This same pattern
held for the effect of Gf on Oral Reading Fluency (Fig. 2B). Stronger Gc
abilities led to higher Oral Reading Fluency for all ages although this
effect was particularly pronounced for the youngest ages, 6 to 9
(Fig. 2C). Higher Gsm (Fig. 2D) was associated with higher Reading
Comprehension for all ages, but this effect was strongest for the
youngest children.
17.10. Math
For Math Problem Solving, higher Gsm (Fig. 2E) and Gs (Fig. 2F)
were associated with higher performance for all ages, particularly those
aged 6 to 9.
17.11. Writing
Higher Gsm appeared to be associated with improved Essay
Composition performance for the youngest students only, with small or
no effects for older ages (Fig. 2G). Likewise, for Sentence Composition,
Gsm exerted its strongest effect for younger children and smaller effects
for older ages (Fig. 2H). Across all achievement skills these findings
suggest that the effects of the CHC broad abilities on these particular
achievement outcomes vary by age, and these effects tend to appear
stronger for younger children.
18. Discussion
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of CHC
cognitive abilities, measured by the WISC-V, on children's and adoles-
cents' reading, mathematics, and writing skills. The majority of pre-
vious research has studied these effects using WJ tests and thus the
generalizability of these findings across different test batteries is rela-
tively unknown. Additionally, most previous research has used age as a
categorical rather than continuous variable to investigate
3
An alternative method for graphing is to use the regression equations with the in-
teraction terms (e.g., Keith, 2015, chap 8). Because that method incorporated all statis-
tically significant broad ability effects in one equation, however, the graphs were less
interpretable than those shown here.
J.M. Caemmerer et al. Intelligence 68 (2018) 6–20

Fig. 2. A – F: The solid slopes represent the youngest students (ages 6–9), thick dashed slopes are 10–13 year olds, and the small dashed slopes are 14–16 year olds. Fig. 2G and H (Essay
Composition): solid slopes are ages 8–10, thick dashed slopes are ages 11–13, and small dashed slopes are ages 14–16.

15
J.M. Caemmerer et al.
developmental differences in effects. Further, studies that examined the
Wechsler tests have only tested broad measures of achievement rather
than specific skills. Our study adds to this literature by analyzing (a)
cognitive-achievement effects with the recently revised WISC-V; (b)
differential effects of the broad abilities according to age, while pre-
serving the continuous nature of age; and (c) WISC-V CHC effects on
specific achievement areas rather than broad achievement areas.
We found that CHC broad abilities are differentially important in
explaining children's and adolescents' achievement within each specific
domain and that some of these cognitive effects vary with age. There
was overlap between our results and findings from previous studies
even though the majority of those studies were based on the WJ and not
on the Wechsler scales. There were also notable differences between
our results and those of previous studies. These differences should be
examined in future research and considered when interpreting cogni-
tive-achievement findings across different tests.
Below, we review results for each academic domain. The direct ef-
fects of the broad abilities are discussed first due to the generally
overall better fit of the broad ability plus g indirect models. As described
earlier, however, all direct effects on achievement of the broad abilities
include indirect effects from g. This section is followed by a discussion
of the unique effects of the broad abilities, with the influence of g re-
moved, on achievement. Then, the direct and indirect effects of g are
discussed.
It is worth noting again that we found statistical equivalence be-
tween Gf and g in four of the models (Reading Comprehension, Oral
Reading Fluency, Math Fluency, and Spelling). Although this finding is
not unusual, it does lead to interpretive challenges. Any effects of g in
these models are also those of Gf, and any effects of Gf are those of g.
18.1. Direct effects of the broad abilities on achievement
18.1.1. Reading skills
In this study, all reading achievement skills were strongly influ-
enced by children's verbal comprehension-knowledge (Gc) abilities.
Students with stronger knowledge of vocabulary, language, and cultural
information were better able to read words and pseudowords correctly,
read text quickly and accurately, and respond to questions about pas-
sages they read. These results are largely consistent with previous re-
search, which often identifies Gc as the strongest influence on both
specific and broad reading skills (Benson, 2007; Evans et al., 2002;
Floyd et al., 2012; Glutting et al., 2006; Keith, 1999; McGrew, 1993;
McGrew et al., 1997; Niileksela et al., 2016; Oh et al., 2004;
Vanderwood et al., 2002). Reading decoding requires word recognition,
and reading rate and comprehension rely heavily on verbal skills and
informational knowledge.
Several other broad abilities influenced reading achievement, but
their influences were dependent on the specific reading skill. Similar to
previous research with several different batteries, we found significant
effects of short-term memory (Gsm) on basic reading skills (Beaujean
et al., 2014; Benson, 2007; Cormier et al., 2017; Elliot, Hale, Fiorello,
Dorvil, & Moldovan, 2010; Evans et al., 2002; Floyd et al., 2007;
Hajovsky et al., 2014; McGrew, 1993), and reading comprehension
performance (Evans et al., 2002; Floyd et al., 2012; McGrew, 1993).
Short-term memory skills may help students manipulate phonological
information as they decode new words and remember what they read to
construct meaning from text. The effect of Gsm on reading compre-
hension decreased with age, which is consistent with findings from the
Kaufman tests (Hajovsky et al., 2014) and suggests short-term memory
is particularly important for early reading development.
Reading fluency was affected by three other broad abilities.
Processing speed (Gs) exerted consistently strong effects on reading
fluency across all ages, similar to past research (Benson, 2007; Cormier
et al., 2017; Niileksela et al., 2016), whereas fluid reasoning (Gf) and
visual processing (Gv) influenced reading fluency for 6 to 13 year olds,
but not older adolescents. The importance of Gf on the reading fluency
16
Intelligence 68 (2018) 6–20
performance of younger children has also been observed with the WJ IV
(Cormier et al., 2017). The influence of Gv may be related to the im-
portance of orthographic processing for reading, but this effect may
fade at older ages once these skills become automatized (Berninger
et al., 2006). Similarly, the influence of Gf might explain reading flu-
ency differences early on when new learning is required, but once the
skill is automatized, this higher-level ability does not explain individual
differences in reading fluency beyond the other cognitive abilities.
Unlike some past research with the WJ batteries, we did not find
significant effects of Gs on basic reading skills or reading comprehen-
sion (Evans et al., 2002; Floyd et al., 2007; McGrew, 1993; Niileksela
et al., 2016). The sample size in our study may have been too small to
detect a significant Gs effect on reading because the effect size was
often small in previous studies. In past research with larger samples,
standardized regression coefficients for Gs were weak and often non-
significant for those approximately 9 to 10 years and older (β ranged
from 0.08–0.11 across studies; Evans et al., 2002; Floyd et al., 2007;
Floyd et al., 2012; McGrew, 1993). An alternative explanation is there
may be no meaningful relation between Gs and reading as measured by
the Wechsler scales. Previous studies with non-WJ tests (i.e., the WISC-
IV) found no significant relation between Gs and basic reading or
reading comprehension (Beaujean et al., 2014). Because this is the only
study using a Wechsler scale to focus on specific reading skills rather
than broad reading achievement, more research is needed to clarify the
relation between Gs and reading achievement with this test.
18.1.2. Math skills
Math skills were affected most strongly by Gf. Students with
stronger novel reasoning abilities performed more accurate mathematic
computations and solved more multi-step math word problems. The
importance of Gf for math skills is remarkably consistent in past studies
as well, including those with several WJ batteries (Floyd et al., 2003;
Keith, 1999; McGrew & Hessler, 1995; Niileksela et al., 2016; Taub
et al., 2008) and one study of the WISC-IV (Parkin & Beaujean, 2012).
A recent factor analysis of the WISC-V suggests a factor structure
modification that may have implications for our math findings. The
factor analysis results suggested Arithmetic may be better understood
as a direct measure of g instead of as a measure of Gf or Gsm, most likely
due to the complex demands that are required to complete the task,
including quantitative reasoning (Reynolds & Keith, 2017). In a set of
exploratory analyses, we tested an alternative set of models that did not
include Arithmetic to remove the potential confounding influence of
quantitative reasoning on math achievement skills. Despite this change,
Gf continued to significantly influence Math Problem Solving and Nu-
merical Operations, which suggests that Gf has a significant effect on
these math skills regardless of possible contamination due to Ar-
ithmetic.
In addition, Gs influenced all three math skills, which is consistent
with previous WJ research (Floyd et al., 2003; Keith, 1999; McGrew &
Hessler, 1995; Niileksela et al., 2016; Taub et al., 2008). The effects of
Gs on Math Problem Solving were moderated by age, however, and
were relatively stronger for younger students. Processing speed is more
important when acquiring new math skills, until the knowledge and
processes have become more automatic (Bull & Johnston, 1997; Kirby &
Becker, 1988). Therefore, it may be that speedy processing is valuable
for younger students' problem solving because it reduces cognitive load
and allows them to focus on the more complex aspects of the problem,
but the influence of Gs decreases as problem-solving processes become
more automatized during adolescence. Gsm influenced both math flu-
ency and problem solving. The influence of Gsm on Math Problem
Solving, particularly among younger children, is supported by some
previous WJ studies (Floyd et al., 2003; McGrew & Hessler, 1995).
Math fluency has rarely been studied in WJ studies because the
math fluency subtest was considered part of a math calculation com-
posite that also included a test of math calculation. It may be beneficial
to separate math fluency and math calculation in research, however,
J.M. Caemmerer et al.
because our results indicate that the pattern of cognitive-achievement
relations is different for the two math skills.
Unlike past WJ research, we did not find a significant effect of Gc on
math calculation (also referred to as basic math) or math problem
solving (Floyd et al., 2003; Keith, 1999; McGrew & Hessler, 1995;
Niileksela et al., 2016; Taub et al., 2008). For math calculation, the
difference in significant effects may be due to varied statistical power
across studies. The effect of Gc on math calculation was weak for ages
6–16 using the WJ-IV (β = 0.07–0.11; Niileksela et al., 2016) and for
those under age nine using the WJ III (β < 0.10), yet the effect was
significant because the studies used larger sample sizes. Relatively
lower power seems like an unlikely reason for math problem solving,
however, because previous studies typically found moderate to large
effect sizes (β ranged from 0.15 to 0.55 across studies; Floyd et al.,
2003; Keith, 1999; McGrew et al., 1997; McGrew & Hessler, 1995;
Niileksela et al., 2016). Differences across test batteries may also con-
tribute to the differences in results. Specifically, the new WISC-V Gf
quantitative reasoning subtest (Figure Weights, which measures the RQ
narrow ability) may fully account for the potential influence of Gc and a
child's breadth of math knowledge on math achievement skills
(Niileksela et al., 2016). It is also difficult to compare our results to
those from the one other study conducted with a Wechsler scale be-
cause broad math was analyzed in that study instead of specific math
skills (Parkin & Beaujean, 2012). More research is needed to confirm
and clarify the cognitive predictors of math skills for the WISC tests.
18.1.3. Writing skills
Performance on all three writing skills was affected by Gsm.
Students who were better able to hold and manipulate information in
their minds spelled more sounds and words correctly and were better
able to compose sentences and essays. The effect of Gsm on the two
written expression tasks was moderated by age and appeared particu-
larly important for the younger students. The ability to hold grammar
and mechanics rules in short-term memory while formulating sentences
and essays may be more important for younger children, but writing
conventions may become more automatized as children develop.
The significant influence of Gsm on writing skills was also observed
in some studies using the WJ (Cormier et al., 2016; Floyd et al., 2008;
McGrew & Knopik, 1993; Niileksela et al., 2016) and the KABC-II
(Hajovsky et al., in press). Unlike all of the previous WJ studies, we did
not find a significant effect of Gs on writing skills (Cormier et al., 2016;
Floyd et al., 2008; McGrew & Knopik, 1993; Niileksela et al., 2016). It is
important to note that all of the previous WJ studies included a writing
fluency subtest within the written expression factor, but we did not
include a fluency subtest. These discrepant findings warrant further
study to determine if the previous significant effect of Gs was merely
due to the competing influence of a fluency subtest or if our non-sig-
nificant result is due to relatively lower power.
In our study, the effects of Gc and Gf were inconsistent across the
specific writing skills. Gf appears to be important for complex written
expression performance (i.e. Essay Composition), while Gc influences
basic writing performance (i.e. Spelling). The open-ended nature of the
WIAT-III Essay Composition subtest, which requires organization and
planning skills, may increase the effect of Gf on successful performance.
This exact pattern of Gf and Gc effects is supported by one recent WJ IV
study (Cormier et al., 2016); another WJ IV study also found that Gc
influenced basic writing, but in that study Gf did not significantly in-
fluence written expression (Niileksela et al., 2016). Our study is the
second to examine the influence of cognitive abilities on specific
writing skills (rather than broad writing) using a test other than the WJ.
More research is needed to address inconsistent findings across tests
and to better understand which cognitive abilities affect writing per-
formance on a variety of tasks.
18.1.4. Unique effects of the broad abilities
As already noted, this research used a higher-order CHC model of
17
Intelligence 68 (2018) 6–20
intelligence in which g and the broad abilities simultaneously influ-
enced each achievement skill. For most such models, model fit com-
parisons suggested that the broad abilities completely mediated the
effects of g on achievement. Given interest in bifactor models, however,
the unique effects of the broad abilities on the achievement skills, with g
removed, were also examined. A bifactor model controls for g by re-
moving its effects from all cognitive subtests; it examines the effects of g
and of broad abilities with g statistically removed from the subtests. The
approach used here instead examined the effects of the broad ability
residuals on the various achievement outcomes as indirect effects via
the broad abilities. Because these residuals represent the broad ability
with g statistically controlled, these “unique effects” also represent the
effects of the broad abilities on achievement, with g statistically re-
moved. As illustrated elsewhere the two approaches generally produce
similar results (Reynolds & Keith, 2013, 2017). The approach used here
is also conceptually similar to having paths from the residuals to the
achievement outcomes (Crawford, Deary, Allan, & Gustafsson, 1998).
We favor the approach used here because it allowed the calculation of
all effects—direct and unique from the broad abilities, direct, indirect,
and total from g—within a single model.
As expected, and similar to previous cognitive-achievement re-
search using bifactor models (Beaujean et al., 2014; Reynolds & Keith,
2017), the unique effects of the broad abilities were weaker than the
direct effects in the higher-order CHC model in which g influenced the
achievement skills indirectly. Most of the unique effects were of a
moderate magnitude, which provides further support for the im-
portance of considering both broad ability and g influences on academic
achievement. The unique effects of Gf, however, were particularly
weaker in comparison to the direct CHC Gf effects and the unique ef-
fects were no longer statistically significant. This finding is not sur-
prising given the high degree of overlap between Gf and g in the
models. Gf and g overlap to such an extent that when g is removed
statistically from Gf then Gf has little or no remaining additional effect
on achievement. Likewise, when Gf is controlled, g has little or no re-
maining effect on achievement (as shown by the nonsignificant effects
of g in the broad ability plus g indirect models). More research and
especially simulation research is needed to compare the results of the
two approaches (cf. Keith, Reynolds, Caemmerer, Maddocks, & Young,
2016).
18.1.5. Effects of g
Across all nine achievement skills the effects of g were primarily
indirect, but strong (broad ability plus g indirect models). This finding is
consistent with the higher-order CHC model of intelligence analyzed in
this study. The higher-order model posits that g influences the broad
abilities, which in turn influence both specific cognitive tasks and
achievement outcomes. In such CHC models, and in contrast to bifactor
models, g is allowed to affect achievement both directly and indirectly.
Thus, all significant effects of the broad abilities on the nine achieve-
ment skills discussed above were inherently influenced by g, and those
broad ability effects—like all indirect effects—may be attributed both
to the broad abilities and also, in part, to indirect g effects.
Although we were interested in the effects of the broad abilities and
g on achievement, the isomorphic relationship between Gf and g pre-
cluded identification and interpretation of a Gf effect in some models.
Therefore, in the broad ability plus g indirect models, it was not possible
to determine if Gf influenced Reading Comprehension, Oral Reading
Fluency, Math Fluency, and Spelling independent of g. Similarly, in the
g direct effect only models, it was not possible to isolate an effect of g
(separate from Gf) on Math Problem Solving, Math Fluency, and Essay
Composition. Nonetheless, the close relationship between Gf and g can
be understood as representing novel problem-solving. Therefore, sig-
nificant effects of either Gf or g in the following discussion reflect the
importance of such problem-solving abilities for academic achievement
(Gustafsson, 1984).
For two achievement skills, Math Problem Solving and Essay
J.M. Caemmerer et al.
Composition, the g direct effect only models fit better (according to the
AIC) than models that also included paths from the broad abilities to
the academic outcomes. Interestingly, the direct effect of g in these two
models was almost identical to both the indirect effect of g and the
direct effect of Gf in the corresponding broad ability plus g indirect
models. The g direct effect only models fit better than the broad ability
plus g indirect models because chi-square was similar across the two
types of models, but the g direct effect only models have one more degree
of freedom (because the Gf residual variance was constrained to zero in
the g direct effect only models, and because AIC takes both χ2 and the
number of free parameters in the model into account).
More generally, it was difficult to separate g and Gf in many of the
models. As already noted, it is fairly common to find that the effects of g
and Gf are inseparable (e.g., Gustafsson, 1984; Reynolds & Keith,
2017), and we believe this finding has implications for the nature of g.
Reynolds and Keith (2017) discussed such implications in more depth.
Conceptually, this finding means that the effects attributed to Gf in
these models could also be attributed to g in a model that did not in-
clude Gf as a separate factor. Alternatively, g could be omitted from all
models and the broad abilities simply correlated with one another. The
effects shown for all the broad abilities, including Gf, would be the
same in such models as those in the Figure and in Table 4.4
19. Limitations and future research
Our findings must be considered within the context of the limita-
tions of this study. The most salient limitation of this study is the lim-
ited sample size (N = 181). Because of the lower sample size, this study
had less power to detect statistically significant cognitive-achievement
effects compared to other research. As a result, most of the effects
shown in this research are moderate to large in magnitude, and some
smaller effects shown in other studies were not shown here. Therefore,
some of the differences between our findings and those from previous
research may be due to relatively lower power and not substantive
differences in cognitive-achievement effects. Likewise, the small sample
size resulted in lower power to detect statistical significance for inter-
action terms, and thus this research likely did not identify weaker in-
teraction effects.
This smaller sample size led to a methodological advance in cog-
nitive ability-achievement research, however—a quantitative test of
potential developmental differences via an interaction between a con-
tinuous age variable and the broad abilities in their effects on different
areas of achievement. Because this is the first use of such an approach,
future research should analyze larger samples and use different in-
telligence and achievement tests to determine whether the develop-
mental effects indicated in the current study are generalizable.
Another limitation is related to factors that may influence cognitive-
achievement relations, but were not accounted for in our study.
Although boys and girls have similar levels of cognitive abilities and
academic achievement in most areas (Hyde, 2005), studies have de-
monstrated some consistent meaningful gender differences. Males tend
to have higher Gc and Gv, but slower Gs (Camarata & Woodcock, 2006;
Reynolds, Keith, Ridley, & Patel, 2008). Girls consistently outperform
boys on writing tasks (Hajovsky et al., in press; Pargulski & Reynolds,
2017; Scheiber, Reynolds, Hajovsky, & Kaufman, 2015) and males de-
monstrate an advantage in math problem solving, basic reading, and
reading comprehension at the upper end of the distribution (Pargulski
4
In regression and SEM, all common causes of the presumed cause and the presumed
effect must be included for the model to provide accurate estimates of effects (Keith,
2015, chaps 4, 7, 12, 17). g was not a common cause of the broad abilities and
achievement in any of the models tested, however; the effects of the broad abilities should
be very similar whether g is included or if the broad abilities are simply correlated
without reference to g. With the exclusion of a non-common cause there could be small
changes for CFA/SEM models because the parameter estimates are interdependent. There
would be no changes with the exclusion of non-common causes in a regression model.
18
Intelligence 68 (2018) 6–20
& Reynolds, 2017). In future research with larger samples, it would be
beneficial to examine gender differences in WISC-WIAT relations and to
examine the potential interrelationships among gender, age, and other
factors that influence cognitive-achievement relations.
Another limitation is not unique to the current study, but rather a
common feature of this field—the majority of studies that analyze
cognitive-achievement effects examine these relations by analyzing a
single cognitive test and its effects on a single achievement test. A re-
liance on this approach means that findings are limited to constructs
that may be skewed by the specific tests that were analyzed and are less
generalizable to students' cognitive and achievement abilities more
broadly. Cross-battery research, which involves the analysis of multiple
intelligence and achievement tests simultaneously, can address this
limitation and is an important area for future research. The results from
such research can address inconsistencies in cognitive-achievement
effects across different batteries by more broadly explaining these re-
lations, thereby getting closer to the construct level that is the desired
level of inference for all such research.
20. Conclusions and implications
In general, the effects of g on all achievement skills were indirect,
but strong (broad ability plus g indirect models). When examined sepa-
rately (g direct effect only models), the direct effects of g were significant
and large on all nine achievement skills. The effects of g and Gf often
overlapped across the achievement skills. Each broad ability exerted
direct effects on more than one achievement domain, except for Gv,
which did not exert significant main effects on any achievement skill
(Gv's effect on reading fluency was moderated by age). Our results
suggest that Gc is important for all reading and most writing skills; Gs
influences reading fluency, math fluency, and math calculation skills;
and Gf influences math and essay-writing skills. Gf is particularly im-
portant for complex academic skills such as math problem solving and
written expression. It was not possible to disentangle the influence of Gf
and g on reading comprehension, however, and Gf and g were almost
completely redundant in all analyses. The unique effects of the sig-
nificant broad abilities remained significant and moderate sized when
the influence of g was statistically removed, except for Gf due to Gf's
strong relationship with g.
The cognitive-achievement patterns suggest that most of the effects
of the broad abilities are domain-specific because they influence par-
ticular achievement skills, but not all skills. In contrast, domain-general
abilities exert more pervasive effects across achievement skills regard-
less of the specific academic content (Niileksela et al., 2016). Gsm ap-
pears to be a domain-general ability, particularly for younger children,
because Gsm exerts important effects on most reading and math skills
and all writing skills in our study. The cognitive-achievement patterns
described in this study can guide researchers' and clinicians' under-
standing of the relations between intelligence and academic achieve-
ment.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Pearson for making data from the WISC-V and
WIAT-III conorming sample available for this research. Portions of this
research have been presented at the International Society for
Intelligence Research conference.
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
References
Arbuckle, J. L. (2012). Amos (Version 21.0) [Computer Program]. Chicago: IBM SPSS.
Archer, R. P., Buffington-Vollum, J. K., Stredny, R. V., & Handel, R. W. (2006). A survey
of psychological test use patterns among forensic psychologists. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 87, 84–94.
J.M. Caemmerer et al.
Beaujean, A. A., Parkin, J., & Parker, S. (2014). Comparing Cattell–Horn–Carroll factor
models: Differences between bifactor and higher order factor models in predicting
language achievement. Psychological Assessment, 26(3), 789–805.
Benson, N. (2007). Cattell–Horn–Carroll cognitive abilities and reading achievement.
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 26(1), 27–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0734282907301424.
Benson, N. F. (2017). Review of the Wechsler intelligence scale of children. In J. F.
Carlson, K. F. Geisinger, & J. L. Jonson (Eds.). The twentieth mental measurements
yearbook(Fifth Edition). Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.
utexas.edu/.
Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Thomson, J., Wagner, R., Swanson, H. L., Wijsman, E. M.,
& Raskind, W. (2006). Modeling phonological core deficits within a working memory
architecture in children and adults with developmental dyslexia. Scientific Studies of
Reading, 10(2), 165–198. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr1002_3.
Breaux, K. C. (2010). WIAT-III technical manual with adult norms. Bloomington, MN:
Pearson.
Bull, R., & Johnston, R. S. (1997). Children's arithmetical difficulties: Contributions from
processing speed, item identification, and short-term memory. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 65(1), 1–24.
Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Bryant, P. (2004). Children's reading comprehension ability:
Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal ability, and component skills.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 31.
Camarata, S., & Woodcock, R. (2006). Sex differences in processing speed: Developmental
effects in males and females. Intelligence, 34(3), 231–252.
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor analytic studies. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Cashel, M. L. (2002). Child and adolescent psychological assessment: Current clinical
practices and the impact of managed care. Professional Psychology, 33(5), 446.
Cattell, R. B., & Horn, J. L. (1978). A check on the theory of fluid and crystallized in-
telligence with description of new subtest designs. Journal of Educational
Measurement, 15(3), 139–164.
Christopher, M. E., Keenan, J. M., Hulslander, J., DeFries, J. C., Miyake, A., Wadsworth, S.
J., ... Olson, R. K. (2016). The genetic and environmental etiologies of the relations
between cognitive skills and components of reading ability. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 145(4), 451.
Cormier, D. C., Bulut, O., McGrew, K. S., & Frison, J. (2016). The role of
Cattell–Horn–Carroll (CHC) cognitive abilities in predicting writing achievement
during the school-age year. Psychology in the Schools, 53(8), 787–803. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1002/pits.21945.
Cormier, D. C., McGrew, K. S., Bulut, O., & Funamoto, A. (2017). Revisiting the relations
between the WJ-IV measures of Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) cognitive abilities and
reading achievement during the school-age years. Journal of Psychoeducational
Assessment, 35(8), 731–754.
Crawford, J. R., Deary, I. J., Allan, K. M., & Gustafsson, J. E. (1998). Evaluating com-
peting models of the relationship between inspection time and psychometric in-
telligence. Intelligence, 26, 27–42.
Curran, P. J., West, S. G., & Finch, J. F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to non-
normality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological
Methods, 1, 16–29.
Elliot, C. D., Hale, J. B., Fiorello, C. A., Dorvil, C., & Moldovan, J. (2010). Differential
ability scales-II prediction of reading performance: Global scores are not enough.
Psychology in the Schools, 47, 698–720. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pits.20499.
Enders, C. K. (2010). An Introduction to Missing Data. Applied Missing Data Analysis. New
York, New York: Guilford.
Enders, C. K., & Bandalos, D. L. (2001). The relative performance of full information
maximum likelihood estimation for missing data in structural equation models.
Structural Equation Modeling, 8, 430–457.
Evans, J. J., Floyd, R. G., McGrew, K. S., & Leforgee, M. H. (2002). The relations between
measures of Cattell–Horn–Carroll (CHC) cognitive abilities and reading achievement
during childhood and adolescence. School Psychology Review, 31, 246–262.
Ferrer, E., & McArdle, J. J. (2004). An experimental analysis of dynamic hypotheses about
cognitive abilities and achievement from childhood to early adulthood. Developmental
Psychology, 40, 935–952. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.40.6.935.
Floyd, R. G., Evans, J. J., & McGrew, K. S. (2003). Relations between measures of Cattell-
Horn-Carroll (CHC) cognitive abilities and mathematics achievement across the
school-age years. Psychology in the Schools, 40(2), 155–171. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1002/pits.10083.
Floyd, R. G., Keith, T. Z., Taub, G. E., & McGrew, K. S. (2007). Cattell-Horn-Carroll
cognitive abilities and their effects on reading decoding skills: g has indirect effects,
more specific abilities have direct effects. School Psychology Quarterly, 22(2),
200–233. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1045-3830.22.2.200.
Floyd, R. G., McGrew, K. S., & Evans, J. J. (2008). The relative contributions of the
Cattell-Horn-Carroll cognitive abilities in explaining writing achievement during
childhood and adolescence. Psychology in the Schools, 45(2), 132–144. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1002/pits.20284.
Floyd, R. G., Meisinger, E., Gregg, N., & Keith, T. Z. (2012). An explanation of reading
comprehension across development using models from Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory:
Support for integrative models of reading. Psychology in the Schools, 49(8), 725–743.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pits.21633.
Garcia, G. M., & Stafford, M. E. (2000). Prediction of reading by Ga and Gc specific
cognitive abilities for low‐SES White and Hispanic English‐speaking children.
Psychology in the Schools, 37(3), 227–235.
Glutting, J. J., Watkins, M. W., Konold, T. R., & Mcdermott, P. A. (2006). Distinctions
without a difference: The utility of observed versus latent factors from the WISC-IV in
estimating reading and math achievement on the WIAT-II. The Journal of Special
Education, 40(2), 103–114.
19
Intelligence 68 (2018) 6–20
Gustafsson, J. E. (1984). A unifying model for the structure of intellectual abilities.
Intelligence, 8, 179–203.
Gustafsson, J. E., & Balke, G. (1993). General and specific abilities as predictors of school
achievement. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 28, 407–434.
Hajovsky, D., Reynolds, M. R., Floyd, R. G., Turek, J. J., & Keith, T. Z. (2014). A multi-
group investigation of latent cognitive abilities and reading achievement relations.
School Psychology Review, 43(4), 385–406.
Hajovsky, D.B., Villeneuve, E.F., Reynolds, M.R., Niileksela, C.R., Mason, B.A., & Shudak,
N.J.. Cognitive ability influences on written expression: Evidence for developmental
and sex-based differences in school-age children. Journal of School Psychology
Advance online publication. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2017.09.001 (in
press)
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling,
6, 1–55.
Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60,
581–592.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act Amendments, 2004, (Pub. L. No.
108-446, 20 U.S.C. § 1400).
Kaufman, A. S. (2004). KABC-II: kaufman assessment battery for children. AGS Publishing.
Kaufman, A. S., Raiford, S. E., & Coalson, D. L. (2015). Intelligent testing with the WISC-V.
John Wiley & Sons.
Kaufman, S. B., Reynolds, M. R., Liu, X., Kaufman, A. S., & McGrew, K. S. (2012). Are
cognitive g and academic achievement g one and the same g? An exploration on the
Woodcock–Johnson and Kaufman tests. Intelligence, 40(2), 123–138. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.intell.2012.01.009.
Keith, T. Z. (1999). Effects of general and specific abilities on student achievement:
Similarities and differences across ethnic groups. School Psychology Quarterly, 14(3),
239–262. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0089008.
Keith, T. Z. (2015). Multiple regression and beyond: An introduction to multiple regression and
structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Keith, T. Z. (2017). Review of the Wechsler intelligence scale of children. In J. F. Carlson,
K. F. Geisinger, & J. L. Jonson (Eds.). The twentieth mental measurements yearbook
(Fifth Edition). Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/.
Keith, T. Z., Reynolds, M. R., Caemmerer, J. M., Maddocks, D. L. S., & Young, S. R. (2016,
July). Implications for choosing an incorrect hierarchical model of intelligence. Poster
presented at the annual meeting of the International Society for Intelligence Research, St.
Petersburg, Russia.
Kirby, J. R., & Becker, L. D. (1988). Cognitive components of learning problems in ar-
ithmetic. Remedial and Special Education, 9(5), 7–15.
Maslowsky, J., Jager, J., & Hemken, D. (2015). Estimating and interpreting latent vari-
able interactions: A tutorial for applying the latent moderated structural equations
method. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 39, 87–96.
McGrew, K., & Wendling, B. (2010). Cattell–Horn–Carroll cognitive‐achievement rela-
tions: What we have learned from the past 20 years of research. Psychology in the
Schools, 47(7), 651–675. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pits.
McGrew, K. S. (1993). The relationship between the WJ-R Gf-Gc cognitive clusters and
reading achievement across the lifespan. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment,
39–53 Monograph Series: WJ R Monograph.
McGrew, K. S., Flanagan, D. P., Keith, T. Z., & Vanderwood, M. (1997). Beyond g: The
impact of Gf-Gc specific cognitive abilities research on the future use and inter-
pretation of intelligence tests in the schools. School Psychology Review, 26(2),
189–210.
McGrew, K. S., & Hessler, G. L. (1995). The relationship between the WJ-R Gf-Gc cog-
nitive clusters and mathematics achievement across the life-span. Journal of
Psychoeducational Assessment, 13, 21–38.
McGrew, K. S., & Knopik, S. N. (1993). The relationship between the WJ-R Gf-Gc cog-
nitive clusters and writing achievement across the life-span. School Psychology Review,
22(4), 687–695.
Muthén & Muthén (2012). Mplus (version 7). Computer Program. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén
& Muthén.
Niileksela, C. R., Reynolds, M. R., Keith, T. Z., & McGrew, K. S. (2016). A special validity
study of the WJ IV: Acting on evidence for specific abilities. In D. P. Flanagan, & V. C.
Alfonso (Eds.). WJ IV clinical use and interpretation: Scientist-practitioner perspectives
(pp. 65–106). Boston, MA: Elsevier.
Oh, H. J., Glutting, J. J., Watkins, M. W., Youngstrom, E. A., & McDermott, P. A. (2004).
Correct interpretation of latent versus observed abilities: Implications from structural
equation modeling applied to the WISC-III and WIAT linking sample. The Journal of
Special Education, 38(3), 159–173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
00224669040380030301.
Pargulski, J. R., & Reynolds, M. R. (2017). Sex differences in achievement: Distributions
matter. Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 272–278.
Parkin, J. R., & Beaujean, A. A. (2012). The effects of Wechsler intelligence scale for
children-fourth edition cognitive abilities on math achievement. Journal of School
Psychology, 50(1), 113–128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2011.08.003.
Quinn, J. M., Wagner, R. K., Petscher, Y., & Lopez, D. (2015). Developmental relations
between vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension: A latent change score
modeling study. Child Development, 86, 159–175.
Reynolds, M. R., & Hadorn, M. (2016). Our WISC-V review. In A. S. Kaufman, S. Raiford,
& D. Coalson (Eds.). Intelligence testing with the WISC-V (pp. 615–636). Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley.
Reynolds, M. R., & Keith, T. Z. (2013). Measurement and statistical issues in child as-
sessment research. In D. H. Soklofske, V. L. Schwean, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.). Oxford
handbook of child psychological assessment (pp. 48–83). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Reynolds, M. R., & Keith, T. Z. (2017). Multi-group and hierarchical confirmatory factor
J.M. Caemmerer et al.
analysis of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—Fifth Edition: What does it
measure? Intelligence, 62, 31–47.
Reynolds, M. R., Keith, T. Z., Ridley, K. P., & Patel, P. G. (2008). Sex differences in latent
general and broad cognitive abilities for children and youth: Evidence from higher-
order MG-MACS and MIMIC models. Intelligence, 36, 236–260.
Reynolds, M. R., & Turek, J. J. (2012). A dynamic developmental link between verbal
comprehension-knowledge (Gc) and reading comprehension: Verbal comprehension-
knowledge drives positive change in reading comprehension. Journal of School
Psychology, 50, 841–863.
Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: our view of the state of the art.
Psychological Methods, 7(2), 147–177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.2.
147.
Scheiber, C., Reynolds, M. R., Hajovsky, D. B., & Kaufman, A. S. (2015). Gender differ-
ences in achievement in a large, nationally representative sample of children and
20
Intelligence 68 (2018) 6–20
adolescents. Psychology in the Schools, 52, 335–348.
Schneider, W. J., & McGrew, K. S. (2012). The Cattell–Horn–Carroll model of intelligence.
In D. P. Flanagan, & P. L. Harrison (Eds.). Contemporary intellectual assessment (pp. 99–
144). (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Taub, G. E., Keith, T. Z., Floyd, R. G., & McGrew, K. S. (2008). Effects of general and broad
cognitive abilities on mathematics achievement. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(2),
187–198. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1045-3830.23.2.187.
Vanderwood, M. L., McGrew, K. S., Flanagan, D. P., & Keith, T. Z. (2002). The con-
tribution of general and specific cognitive abilities to reading achievement. Learning
and Individual Differences, 13, 159–188.
Wechsler, D. (2009). Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (Third Edition). San Antonio,
TX: NCS Pearson.
Wechsler, D. (2014). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (Fifth Edition). Bloomington,
MN: Pearson.