Comparing Models of Intelligence in Project TALENT: The VPR Model Fits Better than the CHC and Extended Gf-Gc Models

Autor/inn/en	Major, Jason T.; Johnson, Wendy; Deary, Ian J.
Titel	Comparing Models of Intelligence in Project TALENT: The VPR Model Fits Better than the CHC and Extended Gf-Gc Models
Quelle	In: Intelligence, 40 (2012) 6, S.543-559 (17 Seiten) PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0160-2896
DOI	10.1016/j.intell.2012.07.006
Schlagwörter	Intelligence; Achievement Tests; Factor Structure; Models; Comparative Analysis; High School Students; Verbal Ability; Factor Analysis; Talent; Goodness of Fit; Aptitude Tests; Gender Differences; Measures (Individuals) + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Intelligenz; Klugheit; Achievement test; Achievement; Testing; Test; Tests; Leistungsbeurteilung; Leistungsüberprüfung; Leistung; Testdurchführung; Testen; Faktorenstruktur; Analogiemodell; High school; High schools; Student; Students; Oberschule; Schüler; Schülerin; Studentin; Mündliche Leistung; Faktorenanalyse; Begabung; Hochbegabung; Aptitude test; Eignungsprüfung; Eignungstest; Geschlechterkonflikt; Messdaten
Abstract	Three prominent theories of intelligence, the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC), extended fluid-crystallized (Gf-Gc) and verbal-perceptual-image rotation (VPR) theories, provide differing descriptions of the structure of intelligence (McGrew, 2009; Horn & Blankson, 2005; Johnson & Bouchard, 2005b). To compare these theories, models representing them were fit to data from Project TALENT (PT), a nationally-representative study of American high school students in 1960. Models were constructed using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses in two selections of the PT aptitude and achievement tests: a 37-test broad selection that included the information tests of specific knowledge, and a 22-test narrow selection that excluded them. Models were fit separately in eight samples divided based on sex and grade level. The VPR model displayed the best fit to both selections of PT data in each sample. We discuss the implications of these results within each of the three theories. (Contains 9 tables and 3 figures.) (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Elsevier. 6277 Sea Harbor Drive, Orlando, FL 32887-4800. Tel: 877-839-7126; Tel: 407-345-4020; Fax: 407-363-1354; e-mail: usjcs@elsevier.com; Web site: http://www.elsevier.com
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2017/4/10