This presentation presents an update of the "CHC COG-ACH correlates research synthesis" project described and hosted at IQ's Corner (www.intelligencetesting.blogspot.com) and IAP (www.iapsych.com). The viewer should first read the background materials regarding this project at these sites (how to access is also included in first slide). The current slides present my preliminary analysis and conclusions of the relations between CHC cognitive abilities and basic reading skills, reading comprehension, basic math skills, and math reasoning as a function of age (developmental status). The results are part of a manuscript that is in preparation. Revisit IQ's Corner to keep abreast of updates.

1. National Association of School Psychology (NASP) Conference Feb 27, 2009 Boston, MA Kevin S. McGrew, PhD Woodcock-Munoz Foundation (WMF) University of Minnesota (Ed. Psych.) CHC cognitive and achievement relations research synthesis: What we’ve learned from 20 years of research (Formative materials…..this presentation is not yet completed)

2. Conflict of interest disclosure for Kevin McGrew A large portion of the research summarized in the project summarized in this presentation has been based on the WJ-R and WJ III. Dr. Kevin McGrew has a financial interest in the WJ III as a co-author of the WJ III Battery

3. CHC Cognitive-Achievement Relations: What We Have Learned From the Past 20 Years of Research Kevin S. McGrew Woodcock-Muñoz Foundation University of Minnesota Barbara J. Wendling Woodcock-Muñoz Foundation (manuscript in preparation, 2009) Click the above image to visit the actual internet-based EWOK (evolving web of knowledge) in order to learn more about the research project that is the basis of the current set of slides If that does not work go to IQ’s Corner Blog ( www.intelligencetesting.blogspot.com ) and click on CHC COG-ACH res. synthesis link under IQ’s Corner Information section It is strongly recommended that the viewer first review this background information prior to attempting to review and understand the results in this current set of slides

4. Prior CHC Cog-Ach Relations Research Syntheses Included in Cross-Battery Texts

5. Sample synthesis table from McGrew & Flanagan ITDR, 1997)

9. Benson, N. (2009). Integrating psychometric and information processing perspectives to clarify the process of mathematical reasoning . Manuscript in preparation. Benson, N. (2008) . Cattell-Horn-Carroll cognitive abilities and reading achievement. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 26 (1), 27-41. 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 (2), 246-262. Flanagan, D. P. (2000) . Wechsler-based CHC cross-battery assessment and reading achievement: Strengthening the validity of interpretations drawn from Wechsler test scores. School Psychology Quarterly, 15 (3), 295-329. Floyd, R. G., Bergeron, R., & Alfonso, V. C. (2006) . Cattell-Horn-Carroll cognitive ability profiles of poor comprehenders. Reading and Writing, 19 (5), 427-456. 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. 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. Ganci, M. (2004 ). The diagnostic validity of a developmental neuropsychological assessment (NEPSY) - Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-third edition (WISC-III) based cross battery assessment . Retrieved from ProQuest UMI Dissertation Publishing (UMI Microform 3150999) . Hale, J. B., Fiorello, C. A., Dumont, R., Willis, J. O., Rackley, C., & Elliott, C. (2008 ). Differential Ability Scales-Second Edition (Neuro) psychological predictor of math performance for typical children and children with math disabilities. Psychology in the Schools, 45 (9), 838- 858. 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. McGrew, K. (2007) . Prediction of WJ III reading and math achievement by WJ III cognitive and language tests . Unpublished data analysis available at IQs Corner Blog. Studies included in research synthesis (continued on next page)

10. McGrew, K. (2008) . Cattell-Horn-Carroll g and specific ability effects on reading and math: Reanalysis of Phelps et al. (2007). Unpublished data analysis available at IQs Corner Blog. McGrew, K. S. (1993 ). The relationship between the WJ-R Gf-Gc cognitive clusters and reading achievement across the lifespan. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, Monograph Series: WJ R Monograph, 39-53. 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 interpretation 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 cognitive clusters and mathematics achievement across the life-span. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 13 , 21-38. Miller, B. D. (2001) . Using Cattell-Horn-Carroll cross-battery assessment to predict reading achievement in learning disabled middle school students . Retrieved from ProQuest UMI Dissertation Publishing (UMI Microform 9997281). Proctor, B. E., Floyd, R. G., & Shaver, R. B. (2005) . Cattell-Horn-Carroll broad cognitive ability profiles of low math achievers. Psychology in the Schools, 42 (1), 1-12. Taub, G. E., Floyd, R. G., Keith, T. Z., & McGrew, K. S. (2008) . Effects of general and broad cognitive abilities on mathematics achievement. School Psychology Quarterly, 23 (2), 187- 198. Vanderwood, M. L., McGrew, K. S., Flanagan, D. P., & Keith, T. Z. (2002) . The contribution of general and specific cognitive abilities to reading achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 13 , 159-188. Studies included in research synthesis (cont)

13. Coding of studies

14. Coding of studies Important note – most all (90+%) of the studies based entirely, or partially, on WJ-R/WJ III

15. Coding of studies

16. Visual-graphic explanations of the primary research designs that have been used in the contemporary CHC Cog-Ach relations research studies are presented next (and are the basis of “analysis method” in Table 1--prior slide)

17. Figure 1(a): Simultaneous or Standard Multiple Regression ( MR ) -Manifest/Measured Variables ( MV) - rectangles -no g (full scale IQ) included -Cog. IVs either at broad and/or narrow stratum levels -Ach DVs either at broad and/or narrow stratum levels -b1..bn th represent regression weights Te Cog. Test or Cluster 1 Te Cog. Test or Cluster 2 Te Cog. Test or Cluster 4 Te Cog. Test or Cluster 3 Te Cog. Test or Cluster 5 Te Cog. Test or Cluster 6 Te Cog. Test or Cluster 7 Te Cog. Test or Cluster 8 Te Cog. Test or Cluster n th Ach. Test or Cluster (Note : Double headed arrows representing correlations between all pairs of cog. test or cluster variables omitted for readability purposes) Independent Variables (IV) – Cog. Dependent Variable (DV) – Ach. b1 b2 b4 b3 b6 b5 b7 b8 bn th

18. Figure 1(a): Simultaneous or Standard Multiple Regression ( MR ) : Example

19. Figure 1(a): Simultaneous or Standard Multiple Regression ( MR ) : Example

20. Figure 1(b): Structural Equation Modeling ( SEM ) – Type 1 -Manifest/Measured Variables ( MV) – rectangles -Latent Variables (LV) - ovals - g (conceptually similar to full scale IQ) included -LVs at general (thick linked oval), broad (regular thickness oval) , and/or narrow (dashed oval) strata levels for Cog. IVs and broad and narrow strata for Ach DVs -dashed arrows represent factor loading paths (the measurement model) -solid arrows represent causal effect paths (the structural model) -g has d irect effect on Brd Ach and indirect effects on Ach LV1, LV2, LV3, and LV4 (mediated through) g  Brd Ach. - g has indirect effects on Ach LV4 (mediated through g  Cog LV2) and Ach LV1 (mediated through g  Cog LV1) -Cog LV1  Ach LV1 and Cog LV2  Ach LV4 are examples of specific ability direct effects (Note : Residuals and significant correlations between residuals are omitted from the diagram for readability purposes Te Cog. Test 1 Te Cog. Test 2 Te Cog. Test 4 Te Cog. Test 3 Te Cog. Test 5 Te Cog. Test 6 Te Cog. Test 7 Te Cog. Test 8 Te Cog. Test n th Independent Variables (IV) – Cog. Dependent Variables (DV) -- Ach Cog LV2 Cog LV n th g Cog LV1 Ach LV1 Te Ach. Test 1 Te Ach. Test 2 Te Ach. Test 4 Te Ach. Test 3 Brd Ach Ach LV3 Ach LV4 Ach LV2 Cog LV3

22. Figure 1(c): Structural Equation Modeling ( SEM ) – Type 2 -Manifest/Measured Variables ( MV) – rectangles -Latent Variables (LV) - ovals - g (conceptually similar to full scale IQ) included -LVs at general (thick linked oval), broad (regular thickness oval) , and / or narrow (dashed oval) stratum levels for Cog. IVs but only at narrow stratum for Ach. DVs -dashed arrows represent factor loading paths (the measurement model) -solid arrows represent causal effect paths (the structural model) - g has no direct effect on Ach LV1 but has indirect effect on Ach LV1 (mediated through) g  Cog LV1 -Cog LV1  Ach LV1 is an example of a specific ability direct effect (Note : Residuals and significant correlations between residuals are omitted from the diagram for readability purposes Te Cog. Test 1 Te Cog. Test 2 Te Cog. Test 4 Te Cog. Test 3 Te Cog. Test 5 Te Cog. Test 6 Te Cog. Test 7 Te Cog. Test 8 Te Cog. Test n th Independent Variables (IV)) – Cog. Dependent Variable (DV) – Ach. Cog LV2 Cog LV n th g Cog LV1 Te Ach. Test 2 Te Ach. Test 1 Ach LV1 Cog LV3

23. Figure 1(c): Structural Equation Modeling ( SEM ) – Type 2 Example

24. Figure 1(d): Structural Equation Modeling ( SEM ) – Type 3 -Manifest/Measured Variables ( MV) – rectangles -Latent Variables (LV) - ovals - g (conceptually similar to full scale IQ) included -LVs at general (thick linked oval), broad (regular thickness oval) , and / or narrow (dashed oval) stratum levels for Cog. IVs but only at narrow stratum for Ach. DVs -dashed arrows represent factor loading paths (the measurement model) -solid arrows represent causal effect paths (the structural model) - g has direct effect on all Ach LVs - g has indirect effects on Ach LV1; mediated through; g  Cog LV n th  Cog LV3; g  Cog LV2 - g has indirect effects on Ach LV2; mediated through; g  Cog LV n th  Cog LV3  Ach LV1; g  Cog LV2  Ach LV1; g  Ach LV1 - g has indirect effects on Ach LV3; mediated through; g  Cog LV n th  Cog LV3  Ach LV1  Ach LV2; g  Cog LV2  Ach LV1  Ach LV2; g  Ach LV1  Ach LV2; g  Ach LV2 -Cog LV2  Ach LV1 and Cog LV3  Ach LV1 are examples of a specific ability direct effects (Note : Residuals and significant correlations between residuals are omitted from the diagram for readability purposes Te Cog. Test 1 Te Cog. Test 2 Te Cog. Test 4 Te Cog. Test 3 Te Cog. Test 5 Te Cog. Test 6 Te Cog. Test 7 Te Cog. Test 8 Te Cog. Test n th Independent Variables (IV)) – Cog. Dependent Variable (DV) – Ach. Cog LV2 Cog LV n th g Cog LV1 Cog LV3 Te Ach. Test 2 Te Ach. Test 1 Ach LV1 Te Ach. Test 4 Te Ach. Test 3 Ach LV2 Te Ach. Test 6 Te Ach. Test 5 Ach LV3

25. Figure 1(d): Structural Equation Modeling ( SEM ) – Type 3 Example

26. BR Ga Ga: PC Ga: US/UR Gc: K0 Gc: LD/VL Gc: LS Gf: RQ Glr Glr: MA Gs Gs: P Gsm Gsm: MS Gsm: MW g CHC Ability 0 20 40 60 80 100 % sign. samples 14-19 yrs (n =9 ) 9-13 yrs (n =14) 6 to 8 yrs (n =14) % significant samples in prediction of Basic Reading Skills by CHC abilities by three age groups Note: Included CHC abilities had to have at least 2 sample results reported (number above each bar is the number of samples included).CHC abilities with “% significant samples” less than 20% excluded from figure 4-3-2 7 9 8 3-3 14 14 9 11 3 4 14 4 2 2 7 8 7 8 7 6 5 6 6 4 10 9 6 5 4-4 9-8-5

27. BR Ga Ga: PC Gc: K0 Gc: LD/VL Gc: LS Gf Gf: RQ Glr Glr: MM Glr: NA Gs Gs: P Gsm Gsm: MS Gsm: MW Gv: MV g 0 20 40 60 80 100 % sign. samples CHC Ability % significant samples in prediction of Reading Comprehension by CHC abilities by three age groups 14-19 yrs (n=8) 9-13 yrs (n=13) 6 to 8 yrs (n =11) Note: Included CHC abilities had to have at least 2 sample results reported (number above each bar is the number of samples included).CHC abilities with “% significant samples” less than 20% excluded from figure 5-4-3 4 7 9 8 7 11-13-8 3-3-3 3-3-3 4 2 2 4 6 2-2 3 3 4 7 7 7 5 3 3 8-8 5 3-3-3 5-6-3 2

28. Ga: PC Gc: LD/VL Gc: LS Gc: VL Gf Gf: RQ Gf: RG Glr: MA Glr: MM Glr: NA Gs Gs: AC/EF Gs: P Gsm Gsm: MW Gv: SS g 0 20 40 60 80 100 % sign. samples CHC Ability % significant samples in prediction of Basic Math Skills by CHC abilities by three age groups 14-19 yrs (n=10) 9-13 yrs (n=12) 6 to 8 yrs (n = 12) Note: Included CHC abilities had to have at least 2 sample results reported (number above each bar is the number of samples included).CHC abilities with “% significant samples” less than 20% excluded from figure 4-4 4 12 12 10 2-2-2 2 10 9 8 2-2-2 2-2-2 3 2 2-2-2 8 7 6 2 2 2 4-4-4 4 5-5-5 5-5-3 2

29. BM Ga: PC Ga: US/UR Gc: K0 Gc: LD/VL Gc: LS Gf Gf: RQ Gf: RG Glr: MA Glr: MM Gs Gs: AC/EF Gs: P Gsm Gsm: MS Gsm: MW g 0 20 40 60 80 100 % sign. samples CHC Ability % significant samples in prediction of Math Reasoning by CHC abilities by three age groups 14-19 yrs (n=12) 9-13 yrs (n=14) 6 to 8 yrs (n = 13) Note: Included CHC abilities had to have at least 2 sample results reported (number above each bar is the number of samples included).CHC abilities with “% significant samples” less than 20% excluded from figure 2-3-3 6-6 5 2 13 14 10 2-2 2 2 2-2 12 11 8 2-2-2 2 4 2 8 8 2 5 6 5 5-5 3 5 5-5-5 6-7-5

30. Basic Reading Skills: Consistency of findings Lets break it down to better understand the results and conclusions

31. The following BRS study coding tables served as the “raw material” for the subsequent visual-graphic figures used in drawing conclusions. Original (and more readable) copies of these tables are available at the original EWOK site (see first slide)

37. BR Ga Ga: PC Ga: US/UR Gc: K0 Gc: LD/VL Gc: LS Gf: RQ Glr Glr: MA Gs Gs: P Gsm Gsm: MS Gsm: MW g CHC Ability 0 20 40 60 80 100 % sign. samples 14-19 yrs (n =9 ) 9-13 yrs (n =14) 6 to 8 yrs (n =14) % significant samples in prediction of Basic Reading Skills by CHC abilities by three age groups Note: Included CHC abilities had to have at least 2 sample results reported (number above each bar is the number of samples included).CHC abilities with “% significant samples” less than 20% excluded from figure 4-3-2 7 9 8 3-3 14 14 9 11 3 4 14 4 2 2 7 8 7 8 7 6 5 6 6 4 10 9 6 5 4-4 9-8-5

44. Basic Reading Skills: Consistency of findings Lets put it all back together

45. Ga: PC Gc: K0 Gc: LD/VL Gc: LS 0 20 40 60 80 100 % sign. samples 14-19 yrs (n =9 ) 9-13 yrs (n =14) 6 to 8 yrs (n =14) Basic Reading Skills: Consistency of findings summary 9 8 11 14 14 9 3 14 4 4 Gsm 6 6 4 10 9 6 5 4-4 Gsm: MS Gsm: MW Gs Gs: P 7 8 7 6 5 9-8-5 4-3-2 7 Ga 3-3 Ga: US/UR 2 2 Gf: RQ Glr Glr: MA 7 8 BR g Red = high Blue = medium Green = low Light purple = tentative/speculative Gray = not cons. sign Gv Note: Included CHC abilities had to have at least 2 sample results reported (number above each bar is the number of samples included).CHC abilities with “% significant samples” less than 20% excluded from figure

46. Reading Comprehension: Consistency of findings Lets break it down to better understand the results and conclusions

47. The following three RC study coding tables served as the “raw material” for the subsequent visual-graphic figures used in drawing conclusions. Original (and more readable) copies of these tables are available at the original EWOK site (see first slide)

51. BR Ga Ga: PC Gc: K0 Gc: LD/VL Gc: LS Gf Gf: RQ Glr Glr: MM Glr: NA Gs Gs: P Gsm Gsm: MS Gsm: MW Gv: MV g 0 20 40 60 80 100 % sign. samples CHC Ability % significant samples in prediction of Reading Comprehension by CHC abilities by three age groups 14-19 yrs (n=8) 9-13 yrs (n=13) 6 to 8 yrs (n =11) Note: Included CHC abilities had to have at least 2 sample results reported (number above each bar is the number of samples included).CHC abilities with “% significant samples” less than 20% excluded from figure 5-4-3 4 7 9 8 7 11-13-8 3-3-3 3-3-3 4 2 2 4 6 2-2 3 3 4 7 7 7 5 3 3 8-8 5 3-3-3 5-6-3 2

57. Reading Comprehension: Consistency of findings Lets put it all back together

58. Gv BR Ga Ga: PC Gc: K0 Gc: LD/VL Gc: LS Gf Gf: RQ Glr Glr: MM Glr: NA Gs Gs: P Gsm Gsm: MS Gsm: MW Gv: MV g 0 20 40 60 80 100 % sign. samples 14-19 yrs (n=8) 9-13 yrs (n=13) 6 to 8 yrs (n =11) Note: Included CHC abilities had to have at least 2 sample results reported (number above each bar is the number of samples included).CHC abilities with “% significant samples” less than 20% excluded from figure 5-4-3 4 7 9 8 7 11-13-8 3-3-3 3-3-3 4 2 2 4 6 2-2 3 3 4 7 7 7 5 3 3 8-8 5 3-3-3 5-6-3 2 Reading Comprehension: Consistency of findings summary Red = high Blue = medium Green = low Light purple = tentative/speculative Gray = not cons. sign

59. Comparison of CHC abilities by BRS and RC

60. Red = high Blue = medium Green = low Light purple = tentative/speculative Gray = not cons. sign 0 20 40 60 80 100 % sign. samples 14-19 yrs (n=8) 9-13 yrs (n=13) 6 to 8 yrs (n =11) Gc : BRS and RC comparisons Gc: K0 Gc: LD/VL Gc: LS 3-3-3 3-3-3 11-13-8 Gc: K0 Gc: LD/VL Gc: LS 14 14 9 3 14 4 4 BRS RC

61. 0 20 40 60 80 100 % sign. samples 14-19 yrs (n=8) 9-13 yrs (n=13) 6 to 8 yrs (n =11) Ga Ga: PC 9 7 8 4 7 Ga: PC 9 8 11 Ga : BRS and RC comparisons BRS RC 3-3 Ga: US/UR Red = high Blue = medium Green = low Light purple = tentative/speculative Gray = not cons. sign 7 Ga

62. 0 20 40 60 80 100 % sign. samples 14-19 yrs (n=8) 9-13 yrs (n=13) 6 to 8 yrs (n =11) Gs: P 7 7 5 Gs 7 4 Gs Gs: P 7 8 7 6 5 Gs : BRS and RC comparisons BRS RC Red = high Blue = medium Green = low Light purple = tentative/speculative Gray = not cons. sign

63. 0 20 40 60 80 100 % sign. samples 14-19 yrs (n=8) 9-13 yrs (n=13) 6 to 8 yrs (n =11) Gsm 3 3 Gsm: MW 3-3-3 Gsm: MS 5 8-8 Gsm 6 6 4 10 9 6 5 4-4 Gsm: MS Gsm: MW BRS RC Gsm : BRS and RC comparisons Red = high Blue = medium Green = low Light purple = tentative/speculative Gray = not cons. sign

64. 0 20 40 60 80 100 % sign. samples 14-19 yrs (n=8) 9-13 yrs (n=13) 6 to 8 yrs (n =11) Glr Glr: MM Glr: NA 2-2 3 6 4 3 Glr Glr: MA 7 8 Glr : BRS and RC comparisons BRS RC Red = high Blue = medium Green = low Light purple = tentative/speculative Gray = not cons. sign

65. 0 20 40 60 80 100 % sign. samples 14-19 yrs (n=8) 9-13 yrs (n=13) 6 to 8 yrs (n =11) Gf Gf: RQ 2 2 4 2 2 Gf: RQ Gf : BRS and RC comparisons Red = high Blue = medium Green = low Light purple = Not sign. or tentative/speculative BRS RC

66. Gv Gv 0 20 40 60 80 100 % sign. samples 14-19 yrs (n=8) 9-13 yrs (n=13) 6 to 8 yrs (n =11) Gv: MV 2 BRS RC Gv : BRS and RC comparisons Red = high Blue = medium Green = low Light purple = tentative/speculative Gray = not cons. sign

67. Basic Math Skills: Consistency of findings Lets break it down to better understand the results and conclusions

68. The following three BMS study coding tables served as the “raw material” for the subsequent visual-graphic figures used in drawing conclusions. Original (and more readable) copies of these tables are available at the original EWOK site (see first slide)

72. Ga: PC Gc: LD/VL Gc: LS Gc: VL Gf Gf: RQ Gf: RG Glr: MA Glr: MM Glr: NA Gs Gs: AC/EF Gs: P Gsm Gsm: MW Gv: SS g 0 20 40 60 80 100 % sign. samples CHC Ability % significant samples in prediction of Basic Math Skills by CHC abilities by three age groups 14-19 yrs (n=10) 9-13 yrs (n=12) 6 to 8 yrs (n = 12) Note: Included CHC abilities had to have at least 2 sample results reported (number above each bar is the number of samples included).CHC abilities with “% significant samples” less than 20% excluded from figure 4-4 4 12 12 10 2-2-2 2 10 9 8 2-2-2 2-2-2 3 2 2-2-2 8 7 6 2 2 2 4-4-4 4 5-5-5 5-5-3 2

78. Basic Math Skills: Consistency of findings Lets put it all back together

79. Ga: PC Gc: LD/VL Gc: LS Gc: VL Gf Gf: RQ Gf: RG Glr: MA Glr: MM Glr: NA Gs Gs: AC/EF Gs: P Gsm Gsm: MW Gv: SS g 0 20 40 60 80 100 % sign. samples Note: Included CHC abilities had to have at least 2 sample results reported (number above each bar is the number of samples included).CHC abilities with “% significant samples” less than 20% excluded from figure 4-4 4 12 12 10 2-2-2 2 10 9 8 2-2-2 2-2-2 3 2 2-2-2 8 7 6 2 2 2 4-4-4 4 5-5-5 5-5-3 2 Basic Math Skills: Consistency of findings summary Red = high Blue = medium Green = low Light purple = tentative/speculative Gray = not cons. sign Gv 14-19 yrs (n=10) 9-13 yrs (n=12) 6 to 8 yrs (n = 12)

80. Math Reasoning: Consistency of findings Lets break it down to better understand the results and conclusions

81. The following three MR study coding tables served as the “raw material” for the subsequent visual-graphic figures used in drawing conclusions. Original (and more readable) copies of these tables are available at the original EWOK site (see first slide)

85. BM Ga: PC Ga: US/UR Gc: K0 Gc: LD/VL Gc: LS Gf Gf: RQ Gf: RG Glr: MA Glr: MM Gs Gs: AC/EF Gs: P Gsm Gsm: MS Gsm: MW g 0 20 40 60 80 100 % sign. samples CHC Ability % significant samples in prediction of Math Reasoning by CHC abilities by three age groups 14-19 yrs (n=12) 9-13 yrs (n=14) 6 to 8 yrs (n = 13) Note: Included CHC abilities had to have at least 2 sample results reported (number above each bar is the number of samples included).CHC abilities with “% significant samples” less than 20% excluded from figure 2-3-3 6-6 5 2 13 14 10 2-2 2 2 2-2 12 11 8 2-2-2 2 4 2 8 8 2 5 6 5 5-5 3 5 5-5-5 6-7-5

91. Math Reasoning: Consistency of findings Lets put it all back together

92. % sign. samples Note: Included CHC abilities had to have at least 2 sample results reported (number above each bar is the number of samples included).CHC abilities with “% significant samples” less than 20% excluded from figure 2-3-3 6-6 5 2 13 14 10 2-2 2 2 2-2 12 11 8 2-2-2 2 4 2 8 8 2 5 6 5 5-5 3 5 5-5-5 6-7-5 Red = high Blue = medium Green = low Light purple = tentative/speculative Gray = not cons. sign BM Ga: PC Ga: US/UR Gc: K0 Gc: LD/VL Gc: LS Gf Gf: RQ Gf: RG Glr: MA Glr: MM Gs Gs: AC/EF Gs: P Gsm Gsm: MS Gsm: MW g 0 20 40 60 80 100 14-19 yrs (n=12) 9-13 yrs (n=14) 6 to 8 yrs (n = 13)

93. Comparison of CHC abilities by BMS and MR

94. 0 20 40 60 80 100 % sign. samples 14-19 yrs (n=8) 9-13 yrs (n=13) 6 to 8 yrs (n =11) Gc : BMS and MR comparisons BMS MR Red = high Blue = medium Green = low Light purple = tentative/speculative Gray = not cons. sign Gc: LS Gc: VL 12 10 Gc: LD/VL 2-2-2 2 12 Gc: K0 Gc: LS 14 10 2-2 2 2 2-2 Gc: LD/VL 13

95. 0 20 40 60 80 100 % sign. samples 14-19 yrs (n=8) 9-13 yrs (n=13) 6 to 8 yrs (n =11) Ga : BMS and MR comparisons BMS MR Red = high Blue = medium Green = low Light purple = tentative/speculative Gray = not cons. sign Ga: PC 4-4 4 Ga: PC Ga: US/UR 5 2 6-6

96. 0 20 40 60 80 100 % sign. samples 14-19 yrs (n=8) 9-13 yrs (n=13) 6 to 8 yrs (n =11) Gs : BMS and MR comparisons BMS MR Red = high Blue = medium Green = low Light purple = tentative/speculative Gray = not cons. sign Gs Gs: AC/EF Gs: P 8 7 6 2 2 2 4-4-4 Gs Gs: AC/EF Gs: P 8 8 2 5 6 5

97. 0 20 40 60 80 100 % sign. samples 14-19 yrs (n=8) 9-13 yrs (n=13) 6 to 8 yrs (n =11) BMS MR Gsm : BMS and MR comparisons Red = high Blue = medium Green = low Light purple = tentative/speculative Gray = not cons. sign Gsm Gsm: MW 5-5-5 4 Gsm Gsm: MS Gsm: MW 5-5 5-5-5 3 5

98. 0 20 40 60 80 100 % sign. samples 14-19 yrs (n=8) 9-13 yrs (n=13) 6 to 8 yrs (n =11) Glr : BMS and MR comparisons BMS MR Red = high Blue = medium Green = low Light purple = tentative/speculative Gray = not cons. sign Glr: MA Glr: MM Glr: NA 2 2-2-2 3 Glr: MA Glr: MM 4 2

99. 0 20 40 60 80 100 % sign. samples 14-19 yrs (n=8) 9-13 yrs (n=13) 6 to 8 yrs (n =11) Gf : BMS and MR comparisons Red = high Blue = medium Green = low Light purple = Not sign. or tentative/speculative BMS MR Gf Gf: RQ Gf: RG 10 9 8 2-2-2 2-2-2 Gf Gf: RQ Gf: RG 12 11 8 2-2-2 2

100. 0 20 40 60 80 100 % sign. samples 14-19 yrs (n=8) 9-13 yrs (n=13) 6 to 8 yrs (n =11) BMS MR Gv : BMS and MR comparisons Red = high Blue = medium Green = low Light purple = tentative/speculative Gray = not cons. sign Gv Gv Gv: SS 2

102. Broad Domain Markers Basic Reading Skills – ages 6 to 8 Gc Crystallized Intelligence Gsm Short-Term Memory Ga Auditory Processing Gs Processing Speed Glr Long-Term Retrieval Short-term Memory Working Memory Processing Speed Perceptual Speed-DS Comp-Knowledge Listening Comp. Phonemic Awareness Phonemic Awareness 3 Most Relevant WJ III Clusters Long-term Retrieval Associative Memory-DS Cognitive Fluency Work Mem (MW) Lang. Dev. (LD) Listen. Ability (LS) Gen. Info. (K0) Lex. Know. (VL) Phonetic Coding (PC) Perc. Speed (P) Narrow Domain Markers Assoc. Mem. (MA) Naming Fac. (NA) Numbers Reversed (MW) Understanding Dir (MW/LS ) Aud. Working. Mem. (MW) Visual Matching (P) Verbal Comp. (LD/VL) Oral Comp. (LS) General Info (K0) Picture Vocab. (VL) Snd. Aware. (PC/MW) Snd. Blending (PC) Most Relevant WJ III Tests Vis.-Aud.-Lrng. (MA) Rapid. Pic. Nam. (NA) Retrieval Fluency (FI) (NA) Research foundation: From McGrew @ Wendling (2009) CHC COG-ACH relations research synthesis (prior slides) Bridge research – real world practice WJ III clusters/test selected based on McGrew & Wendling (2009) plus expert-knowledge and clinical experience with WJ III battery

103. Work Mem (MW) Memory Span (MS) Lang. Dev. (LD) General Info (K0) Lex. Know. (VL) Phonetic Coding (PC) Spch-Snd Discrim/ Res to ASD (US/UR) Perc. Speed (P) Narrow Domain Markers Short-term Memory Working Memory Memory Span-DS Processing Speed Perceptual Speed-DS Comp-Knowledge Phonemic Awareness Phonemic Awareness 3 Most Relevant WJ III Clusters Gc Crystallized Intelligence Gsm Short-Term Memory Ga Auditory Processing Gs Processing Speed Broad Domain Markers Num Reversed (MW) Mem. for Words (MS) Understanding Dir. (MW/LS) Visual Matching (P) Verbal Comp. (LD/VL) General Info (K0) Picture Vocab. (VL) Snd. Aware. (PC/MW) Snd. Blending (PC) Snd. Pat.-Voice (US/UR)-DS Most Relevant WJ III Tests Basic Reading Skills ages 9 to 13 Research foundation: From McGrew @ Wendling (2009) CHC COG-ACH relations research synthesis (prior slides) Bridge research – real world practice WJ III clusters/test selected based on McGrew & Wendling (2009) plus expert-knowledge and clinical experience with WJ III battery

104. Work Mem (MW) Memory Span (MS) Lang. Dev. (LD) General Info (K0) Lex. Know. (VL) Perc. Speed (P) Narrow Domain Markers Short-term Memory Working Memory Memory Span-DS Perceptual Speed-DS Comp-Knowledge Phonemic Awareness Phonemic Awareness 3 Most Relevant WJ III Clusters Gc Crystallized Intelligence Gsm Short-Term Memory Ga Auditory Processing Gs Processing Speed Broad Domain Markers Num. Reversed (MW) Mem. for Words (MS) Mem. for Sent. (MS)-DS Aud. Work. Mem. (MW) Visual Matching (P) Verbal Comp. (LD/VL ) General Info (K0) Picture Vocab. (VL) Snd. Aware. (PC/MW) Snd. Blending (PC) Snd. Pat-Voice (US/UR)-DS Most Relevant WJ III Tests Basic Reading Skills ages 14 to 19 Phonetic Coding (PC) Spch-Snd Discrim/ Res to ASD (US/UR) Research foundation: From McGrew @ Wendling (2009) CHC COG-ACH relations research synthesis (prior slides) Bridge research – real world practice WJ III clusters/test selected based on McGrew & Wendling (2009) plus expert-knowledge and clinical experience with WJ III battery

105. Work Mem (MW) Narrow Domain Markers Working Memory Most Relevant WJ III Clusters Broad Domain Markers Numbers Rev. (MW) Under. Dir. (MW/LS) Mem. for Sent (MS/LS)-DS Aud. Work. Memory (MW) Most Relevant WJ III Tests Reading Comp. ages 6 to 8 Gc Crystallized Intelligence Gsm Short-Term Memory Ga Auditory Processing Gs Processing Speed Perc. Speed (P) Perceptual Speed-DS Visual Matching (P) Lang. Dev. (LD) Listen. Ability (LS) General Info (K0) Lex. Know. (VL) Comp-Knowledge Listening Comp. Verbal Comp. (LD/VL) General Info (K0) Oral Comprehension (LS) Picture Vocab. (VL) Phonetic Coding (PC) Auditory Processing Phonemic Awareness Phonemic Awareness 3 Snd. Aware. (PC/MW) Snd. Blending (PC) Incomplete Words (PC) Glr Long-Term Retrieval Assoc. Memory (MA ) Naming Facility (NA) Associative Memory-DS Cognitive Fluency Vis.-Aud.-Lrng (MA) Rapid. Pic. Nam. (NA ) Retrieval Fluency (FI) (NA) Research foundation: From McGrew @ Wendling (2009) CHC COG-ACH relations research synthesis (prior slides) Bridge research – real world practice WJ III clusters/test selected based on McGrew & Wendling (2009) plus expert-knowledge and clinical experience with WJ III battery

106. Narrow Domain Markers Most Relevant WJ III Clusters Broad Domain Markers Most Relevant WJ III Tests Reading Comp. ages 9 to 13 Gc Crystallized Intelligence Gsm Short-Term Memory Ga Auditory Processing Glr Long-Term Retrieval Gs Processing Speed Perc. Speed (P) Perceptual Speed-DS Visual Matching (P) Lang. Dev. (LD) General Info (K0) Listen. Ability (LS) Lex. Know. (VL) Comp-Knowledge Listening Comp. Verbal Comp. (LD/VL) General Info (K0) Picture Vocab. (VL) Oral Comp. (LS) Phonetic Coding (PC) Phonemic Awareness Phonemic Awareness 3 Snd. Aware. (PC/MW) Sound Blending (PC) Naming Fac. (NA) Meaningful Mem. (MM) Long-term Retrieval Cognitive Fluency Story Recall (MM/LS) Vis.-Aud.-Lrng (MA) Rapid. Pic. Nam. (NA) Retrieval Fluency (FI) (NA) Work. Mem. (MW) Working Memory Under. Dir (MW/LS) Mem. for Sent. (MS/LS) Aud. Wrk. Memory (MW) Numbers Reversed (MW) Research foundation: From McGrew @ Wendling (2009) CHC COG-ACH relations research synthesis (prior slides) Bridge research – real world practice WJ III clusters/test selected based on McGrew & Wendling (2009) plus expert-knowledge and clinical experience with WJ III battery

107. Work Mem (MW) Memory Span (MS) Lang. Dev. (LD) General Info (K0) Lex. Know. (VL) Listen. Ability (LS) Phonetic Coding (PC) Narrow Domain Markers Working Memory Memory Span Comp-Knowledge Listening Comp. Phonemic Awareness Phonemic Awareness 3 Most Relevant WJ III Clusters Broad Domain Markers Verbal Comp. (LD/VL) General Info (K0) Oral Comp. (LS) Picture Vocab. (VL) Snd. Aware. (PC/MW) Sound Blending (PC) Most Relevant WJ III Tests Understanding Dir (MW/LS) Mem. for Sent. (MS/LS) Numbers Reversed (MW) Aud. Work. Mem. (MW ) Reading Comp. ages 14 to 19 Gc Crystallized Intelligence Gsm Short-Term Memory Ga Auditory Processing Glr Long-Term Retrieval Gs Processing Speed Perc. Speed (P) Perceptual Speed-DS Visual Matching (P) Meaningful Mem. (MM) Naming Facility (NA) Story Recall (MM/LS) Rapid. Pic. Nam. (NA) Retrieval Fluency (FI) (NA) Cognitive Fluency Research foundation: From McGrew @ Wendling (2009) CHC COG-ACH relations research synthesis (prior slides) Bridge research – real world practice WJ III clusters/test selected based on McGrew & Wendling (2009) plus expert-knowledge and clinical experience with WJ III battery

117. Most of the “action” appears to be at the narrow (vs broad) CHC ability level Important conclusion

119. Some CHC abilities appear to be important across reading AND math – domain general Important conclusion

121. Some CHC abilities appear to be differentially important for reading vs math– domain specific Important conclusion

125. Are some CHC abilities more important at certain ages – developmentally specific ? Important conclusion

126. WJ-R/III has allowed investigation of “developmental” aspects of CHC COG-ACH relations

128. CHC Selective Referral-Focused Assessment Worksheet (McGrew, 2009) Age/grade: _____ Academic referral concern ___________________________________________ CHC res. syn. based Non-CHC res. based Broad/Narrow CHC Abilities Referral Relevant domain? Selective/focused set of starting tests Selective/focused possible additional tests Gsm Memory Span (MS) Y N Working Memory (MW) Y N Gs Perceptual Speed (P) Y N Number Facility (N) Y N Glr Associative Memory (MA) Y N Naming Facility (NA) Y N Meaningful Memory (MM) Y N Gc Language Development (LD) Y N General Information (K0) Y N Listening Ability (LS) Y N Lexical Knowledge (VL) Y N Ga Phonetic Coding (PC) Y N Spch-Snd Disc/Res to ASD (US/UR) Gf Gen. Seq. Reasoning (RG) Y N Quantitative Reasoning (RQ) Y N EF Vigilance/inhibition/planning/ concentration, self-regulation, etc Y N Gkn Domain-specific knowledge (__) Y N Gv Visualization (Vz)/Spat Rel (SR)/ Visual Memory (MV)/Imagery (IM) Y N ??? Orthographic processing (???) Y N

129. “ Tests do not think for themselves, nor do they directly communicate with patients. Like a stethoscope, a blood pressure gauge, or an MRI scan, a psychological test is a dumb tool , and the worth of the tool cannot be separated from the sophistication of the clinician who draws inferences from it and then communicates with patients and professionals” Meyer et al. (2001). Psychological testing and psychological assessment. American Psychologist,

130. WJ III branching test scenarios PSYCHOLOGIST GENERAL’S WARNING: These are NOT to be used in a cookbook manner. The examples are intended to demonstrate modeled logical and decision-making. All cases are unique. Referral-based focused testing is a non-linear iterative cognitive testing hypothesis method based on the skills and expertise of the clinician. (“We are the instrument”; K. McGrew; date unknown) Stay tuned……..research-based selective testing tree examples are under development and will be shared at NASP 2009 (Feb 23-March 1; Boston) and posted for viewing after the conference