Still just 1 g: Consistent results from five test batteries

doi:10.1016/j.intell.2007.06.001

Intelligence

Volume 36, Issue 1, January–February 2008, Pages 81-95

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2007.06.001 Get rights and content

Abstract

In a recent paper, Johnson, Bouchard, Krueger, McGue, and Gottesman (2004) addressed a long-standing debate in psychology by demonstrating that the g factors derived from three test batteries administered to a single group of individuals were completely correlated. This finding provided evidence for the existence of a unitary higher-level general intelligence construct whose measurement is not dependent on the specific abilities assessed. In the current study we constructively replicated this finding utilizing five test batteries. The replication is important because there were substantial differences in both the sample and the batteries administered from those in the original study. The current sample consisted of 500 Dutch seamen of very similar age and somewhat truncated range of ability. The batteries they completed included many tests of perceptual ability and dexterity, and few verbally oriented tests. With the exception of the g correlations involving the Cattell Culture Fair Test, which consists of just four matrix reasoning tasks of very similar methodology, all of the g correlations were at least .95. The lowest g correlation was .77. We discuss the implications of this finding.

Section snippets

Sample

We made use of the data matrix of 46 mental ability tests published by de Wolff and Buiten (1963). This matrix is reprinted here as Appendix A. We did not have access to individual participant data of any kind. The sample on which the matrix was based consisted of 500 professional seamen of the Royal Dutch Navy. Thus the sample consisted entirely of male naval volunteers. Virtually all the seamen were 16 years of age at time of testing, in the summer of 1961. They were so-called sailors third

Test Battery of the Royal Dutch Navy

For this battery, we extracted three factors, which we labeled Mechanical Ability, Problem Solving, and Perceptual Speed. We chose 3 factors by examining several possible numbers of factors and choosing the solution that caused the RMSEA to be less than .08 (indicating a reasonable fit according to Browne & Cudeck, 1992) and which provided the most clearly interpretable solution. The RMSEA for the model was .071 (chi-square = 24.75, 7 df, p = .001). We would have preferred a model with an RMSEA

Discussion

Our goal in this study was constructively to replicate Johnson et al.'s (2004) observation that the g factors from three independently developed test batteries were completely correlated. We did this in a very demographically different sample from the one that generated the original observation. This sample completed five independently developed test batteries, none of which was included among the batteries used in the earlier study. For these reasons alone, our current results provide a very

Acknowledgement

We thank Arne Evers, Jacqueline van Vliet-Mulder (both of the Dutch Test Committee), Jacques Dane (Archives of Dutch Psychology, University of Groningen), and especially Jan van de Linde for their help in finding information about the older tests. We are grateful to Charl de Wolff and Bert Buiten for enthusiastically giving additional details on their valuable dataset. Wendy Johnson holds a Research Council of the United Kingdom Fellowship.

References (29)

GottfredsonL.S.
Why g matters: The complexity of everyday life
Intelligence
(1997)
JohnsonW. et al.
The structure of human intelligence: it's verbal, perceptual, and image rotation (VPR), not fluid and crystallized
Intelligence
(2005)
JohnsonW. et al.
Just one g: Consistent results from three test batteries
Intelligence
(2004)
JohnsonW. et al.
Replication of the hierarchical Visual-Perceptual-Image Rotation (VPR) in de Wolffe & Buiten's (1963) Battery of 46 tests of mental ability
Intelligence
(2007)
LucianoM. et al.
Perceptual speed does not cause intelligence, and intelligence does not cause perceptual speed
Biological Psychology
(2005)
AckermanP.L. et al.
Working memory and intelligence: Same or different constructs
Psychological Bulletin
(2005)
BrowneM. et al.
Alternative methods of assessing model fit
Sociological Methods & Research
(1992)
BrowneM.W. et al.
Comprehensive exploratory factor analysis 1.03b
(2001)
BuitenB.
Gebroken Woorden Test: Open eind of meervoudige keuze? [Broken Words Test: Open end or multiple choice?]
Nederlandst Tijdschrift voor de Psychologie
(1964)
BurosO.K.
The fourth mental measurements yearbook
(1953)

BurosO.K.

The fifth mental measurements yearbook

(1959)

CattellR.B.

Abilities: Their structure, growth, and action

(1971)

de WolffC.J. et al.

Een factoranalyse van vier testbatterijen [A factor analysis of four test batteries]

Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Psychologie

(1963)

DearyI.J.

g and cognitive elements of information processing: An agnostic view

Cited by (221)

Carbon is to life as g is to _____: A review of the contributions to the special issue on specific abilities in intelligence
2023, Intelligence
Just as carbon infuses all life forms, g infuses almost all aspects of cognitive performance. This Special Issue focuses on specific abilities, defined as distinct abilities (e.g., verbal, math, spatial) that differ conceptually and empirically from g, which refers to variance common to tests. The nine contributions examine different specific abilities (e.g., spatial, academic, executive), involve different samples (e.g., humans, animals, countries), and compare different groups (e.g., males and females; gifted and nongifted). The contributions are discussed in terms of their support for a “primacy of g hypothesis,” which assumes that the validity of tests is largely attributable to g, or a “more than g hypothesis,” which assumes that specific abilities contribute to the validity of tests beyond g. The article summarizes each contribution and discusses models and theories of g and specific abilities (e.g., Cattell-Horn-Carroll and Verbal-Perceptual-Image Rotation models; investment and differentiation theories), with a focus on future research on specific abilities. Taken together, the contributions show that specific abilities are a meaningful addition to g but that their validity depends on the particular abilities, models, and theories being examined.
Are Piagetian scales just intelligence tests?
2022, Intelligence
Citation Excerpt :
The shared nature of general intelligence measured with Piagetian and psychometric instruments despite no overlap in test content, construction practices, or underlying theory provides immense support for the construct validity of g and supports it as a reflective construct. However, like earlier findings of this nature have stated (Johnson et al., 2004, 2008), it should be qualified that this does not mean specific abilities are unsystematic or unimportant. Whatever the causes of g, whether they be sampling (Bartholomew, Deary, & Lawn, 2009), process overlap (Kovacs & Conway, 2016), mutualistic coupling (Van Der Maas et al., 2006), genetic generalism (de la Fuente, Davies, Grotzinger, Tucker-Drob, & Deary, 2021; Plomin, Kovas, & Haworth, 2007; Trzaskowski, Shakeshaft, & Plomin, 2013), or wiring (Savi, Marsman, van der Maas, & Maris, 2019), they must respect that the general factor – statistical or real – seems to be reflective.
Abstract
Previous research has noted the relationships between Piagetian and Psychometric tests. The literature on this topic has revealed consistent and moderate-to-high magnitude associations and largely unidimensional tests. However, most of this literature has not explicitly assessed whether Psychometric general intelligence corresponds to a similar factor measurable with Piagetian tests. This study did just that by fitting structural equation models to available data from administrations of Piagetian and Psychometric tests given to the same samples. The tests were modeled separately, and then in models where they were featured together so their general factors could be correlated. The results of those analyses were then subjected to a meta-analysis (K = 8, N = 862) and the meta-analytic relationship between Piagetian and Psychometric general factors was found to be exceptionally high (r = 0.847). Piagetian scales thus test intelligence, and intelligence tests assess Piagetian development.
Cognitive ability has powerful, widespread and robust effects on social stratification: Evidence from the 1979 and 1997 US National Longitudinal Surveys of Youth
2022, Intelligence
Few issues in the social sciences are as controversial as the role of cognitive ability for educational and subsequent socioeconomic attainments. There are a variety of arguments raised to dismiss, discount or discredit the role of cognitive ability: socioeconomic background is the dominant influence; if cognitive ability appears important, that is only because important predictors have been omitted; the relative importance of socioeconomic background and cognitive ability cannot be ascertained; and cognitive ability is simply a function of socioeconomic background and, for post-education socioeconomic attainments, education. This study analyses the effects of cognitive ability and socioeconomic background on a chronological sequence of social stratification outcomes - school grades, SAT and ACT scores, educational and occupational attainment, income and wealth - in data from the 1979 and 1997 National Longitudinal Surveys of Youth. The coefficients for cognitive ability decline marginally with the addition of socioeconomic background measures, including family-of-origin income averaged over several years, and wealth. In contrast, socioeconomic background coefficients decline substantially with the addition of cognitive ability. Net of educational attainment, cognitive ability has sizable effects on occupational attainment and income. Net of socioeconomic background, education and occupation, a one-standard-deviation difference in ability corresponds to a sizable 43% difference in positive wealth at around age 35 in the older cohort and a 25% increase in the younger cohort. Therefore, contrary to dominant narratives, cognitive ability is important to a range of social stratification outcomes, and its effects cannot be attributed to socioeconomic background or educational attainment.
It takes more than meta-analysis to kill cognitive ability
2023, Industrial and Organizational Psychology
Designing and evaluating tasks to measure individual differences in experimental psychology: a tutorial
2024, Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
Investigating robust associations between functional connectivity based on graph theory and general intelligence
2024, Scientific Reports

View all citing articles on Scopus

View full text

Still just 1 g: Consistent results from five test batteries

Abstract

Section snippets

Sample

Test Battery of the Royal Dutch Navy

Discussion

Acknowledgement

Intelligence

Intelligence

Intelligence

Intelligence

Biological Psychology

Working memory and intelligence: Same or different constructs

Psychological Bulletin

Alternative methods of assessing model fit

Sociological Methods & Research

Comprehensive exploratory factor analysis 1.03b

Gebroken Woorden Test: Open eind of meervoudige keuze? [Broken Words Test: Open end or multiple choice?]

Nederlandst Tijdschrift voor de Psychologie

The fourth mental measurements yearbook

The fifth mental measurements yearbook

Abilities: Their structure, growth, and action

Een factoranalyse van vier testbatterijen [A factor analysis of four test batteries]

Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Psychologie

g and cognitive elements of information processing: An agnostic view