Re(Examining) Relations between CHC Broad and Narrow Cognitive Abilities and Reading Achievement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previously, Evans and colleagues (2001) utilized simultaneous multiple regression to examine relations between Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC; Schneider & McGrew, 2012) broad and narrow cognitive abilities and reading achievement across the school age span. Although their findings suggest that many broad/narrow abilities had clinically significant effects on reading achievement they failed to account for the potential moderating effects of the general factor. To account for these effects, the current study employed hierarchical multiple regression analysis to reexamine the relationships between CHC dimensions and reading achievement after controlling for the effects of the general factor with 4,722 participants ages 6-18 from the Woodcock Johnson III Psychoeducational Battery (WJ III; Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001a). Results from the present study indicate that the full scale GIA composite (as a proxy for g) consistently accounted for large effects across the school age span for all of the reading achievement variables that were assessed. Among the broad and narrow abilities, only Gc consistently accounted for meaningful proportions of reading scores beyond g. As a consequence, researchers are encouraged to give greater consideration to the dimensionality of broad and narrow CHC measures when examining cognitive-achievement relationships or they may risk over-interpreting the predictive effects associated with these indices. Potential implications for clinical application of CHC theory are also discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".