Journal of Intelligence

649 KiB

Open AccessBrief Report

Phenotypic, Genetic, and Environmental Correlations between Reaction Times and Intelligence in Young Twin Children

by Julie Aitken Schermer and Philip A. Vernon

J. Intell. 2015, 3(4), 160-167; https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence3040160 - 17 Dec 2015

Viewed by 6230

Phenotypic, genetic, and environmental correlations between various reaction time measures and intelligence were examined in a sample of six-year-old twin children (N = 530 individuals). Univariate genetic analyses conducted on the same-sex pairs (101 monozygotic (MZ) pairs and 132 same-sex dizygotic (DZ) pairs) demonstrated that the intelligence measure and four of the seven reaction time measures had a genetic component (ranging from 44% to 76%). At the phenotypic level, half of the reaction time measures had significant negative correlations with the intelligence measure. Bivariate genetic analyses revealed that only two of the observed phenotypic correlations could be explained by common genetic factors and that the remaining correlations were better explained by common environmental factors. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Mental Speed and Response Times in Cognitive Tests)

602 KiB

Open AccessEditorial

Moving to the Double-Blind Review System

by Paul De Boeck

J. Intell. 2015, 3(4), 158-159; https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence3040158 - 1 Dec 2015

Viewed by 5843

Abstract

The Journal of Intelligence presently has a single-blind peer review system, unlike most other journals in the social sciences, where the double-blind peer review prevails. The choice between the two systems is not easy. Both systems have pros and cons, and a double-blind [...] Read more.

718 KiB

Open AccessReview

Can Intelligence Testing Inform Educational Intervention for Children with Reading Disability?

by Julian G. Elliott and Wilma C. M. Resing

J. Intell. 2015, 3(4), 137-157; https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence3040137 - 25 Nov 2015

Cited by 24 | Viewed by 20518

Abstract

This paper examines the value of intelligence testing for the purpose of informing us how best to intervene with children with reading disability. While the original function of IQ testing was to ascertain whether a child was capable of profiting from schooling, there are many who now claim that cognitive assessment offers a range of diagnostic and prescriptive functions which can help teachers in delivering effective educational programs. This paper interrogates such assertions in relation to the assessment of IQ, cognitive strengths and weaknesses, executive functions, and the use of dynamic testing/assessment. The paper concludes that current evidence indicates that cognitive measures have limited relevance for instructional planning, and cognitive training programs have yet to show sufficient academic gains. For these reasons, it is recommended that our energies should be directed to the continuing development of powerful forms of academic skills-based instruction operating within a response to intervention framework. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Challenges in Intelligence Testing)

164 KiB

Open AccessArticle

John Carroll’s Views on Intelligence: Bi-Factor vs. Higher-Order Models

by A. Alexander Beaujean

J. Intell. 2015, 3(4), 121-136; https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence3040121 - 14 Oct 2015

Cited by 67 | Viewed by 16985

Abstract

The development of factor models is inextricably tied to the history of intelligence research. One of the most commonly-cited scholars in the field is John Carroll, whose three-stratum theory of cognitive ability has been one of the most influential models of cognitive ability in the past 20 years. Nonetheless, there is disagreement about how Carroll conceptualized the factors in his model. Some argue that his model is best represented through a higher-order model, while others argue that a bi-factor model is a better representation. Carroll was explicit about what he perceived the best way to represent his model, but his writings are not always easy to understand. In this article, I clarify his position by first describing the details and implications of bi-factor and higher-order models then show that Carroll’s published views are better represented by a bi-factor model. Full article

► Show Figures

Figure 1

172 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Methodological Issues Associated with Studying the Flynn Effect: Exploratory and Confirmatory Efforts in the Past, Present, and Future

by Joseph Lee Rodgers

J. Intell. 2015, 3(4), 111-120; https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence3040111 - 30 Sep 2015

Cited by 13 | Viewed by 6855

Abstract

This essay, written by the guest editor, is an introduction to a special issue of the Journal of Intelligence devoted to methodological issues associated with the Flynn Effect. The essay evaluates past Flynn Effect research in terms of exploratory versus confirmatory efforts. Future research is also cast within this same framework. Finally, the four special issue papers are briefly reviewed, including comments on their own exploratory/confirmatory status. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Methodological Advances in Understanding the Flynn Effect)

Journal Menu

Journal Browser

J. Intell., Volume 3, Issue 4 (December 2015) – 5 articles , Pages 111-167

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI