Preliminary evidence for the Matrix Matching Test as a valid and reliable measure of general cognitive ability in adolescents
Evidencia preliminar para el uso del Matrix Matching Test como una medida válida y confiable de habilidad cognitiva general en adolescentes
Graham Pluck
,
Karla I. Haro
Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, (2021), 53, pp. 154-163.
Received 1 March 2021
Accepted 4 October 2021
Introducción: En ámbitos de investigación, el uso de una herramienta de medición general de habilidad cognitiva es comúnmente requerido. Una de estas herramientas es el Matrix Matching Test, una evaluación de habilidad cognitiva o inteligencia para adultos que es corta, de uso gratuito y no tiene impedimentos de lenguaje. Esta herramienta evalúa los procesos fluidos, así como los procesos cristalizados de la inteligencia adulta. Investigamos la confiabilidad y la validez de esta herramienta con participantes adolescentes. Método: Se administró la herramienta Matrix Matching Test a 111 participantes de edades entre 12 y 17 años (46 % mujeres). Los subgrupos además completaron dos medidas de habilidad cognitiva del más alto estándar obtenidos de la Escala de inteligencia de Wechsler para Niños IV (WISC-IV): Vocabulario (cristalizada) y Matrices (fluida). Resultados: Se encontró que el Matrix Matching Test tiene una consistencia interna aceptable y buena confiabilidad retest. Se indicó el criterio de validez por su capacidad para distinguir entre participantes habitantes en hogares sustitutos (n = 40) y participantes del grupo control. Asimismo, existe una correlación positiva con el GPA. Además, se encontró correlaciones positivas fuertes entre el Matrix Matching Test y las mediciones de más alto estándar de Vocabulario y Matrices, lo que sugiere una validez convergente. Conclusiones: Nuestra evidencia preliminar sugiere que el Matrix Matching Test es una medida confiable y válida para las habilidades cognitivas generales en edades de 12 a 17 años.
Palabras clave:
Habilidad cognitiva general, inteligencia, evaluación cognitiva, inteligencia cristalizada, inteligencia fluida, adolescentes
Introduction: In research, a simple measure of general cognitive ability is often required. One method is the Matrix Matching Test, a brief, free-to-use, language-free assessment of general cognitive ability or intelligence in adults, which taps both fluid and crystalized processes. We investigated its reliability and validity with adolescent participants. Method: The Matrix Matching Test was administered to 111 participants, aged 12 to 17 (46% female). Subsamples also completed two standard measures of cognitive ability: Vocabulary (crystalized) and Matrix Reasoning (fluid) tests from the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children IV (WISC-IV). Results: The Matrix Matching Test was found to have acceptable internal consistency and good retest reliability. Criterion validity was indicated by its ability to distinguish between psychosocially deprived participants living in foster care (n = 40) and controls, and by its positive correlation with grade point average. There were large positive correlations between the Matrix Matching Test and the standard measures of Vocabulary, and Matrix Reasoning, suggesting convergent validity. Conclusions: Our preliminary evidence suggests that The Matrix Matching Test is a reliable and valid measure of general cognitive ability for ages 12 to 17.
Keywords:
General cognitive ability, intelligence, cognitive assessment, crystalized intelligence, fluid intelligence, adolescents
Arnett, J. J. (2008). The neglected 95%: Why American psychology needs to become less American. American Psychologist, 63(7), 602- 614. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.7.602
Bishara, A. J., & Hittner, J. B. (2012). Testing the significance of a correlation with nonnormal data: Comparison of Pearson, Spearman, transformation, and resampling approaches. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 399-417. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028087
Briggs, S. R., & Cheek, J. M. (1986). The role of factor analysis in the development and evaluation of personality scales. Journal of Personality, 54(1), 106-148. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1986.tb00391.x
Canivez, G. L. (2014). Construct validity of the WISC-IV with a referred sample: Direct versus indirect hierarchical structures. School Psychology Quarterly, 29(1), 38-51. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000032
Canivez, G. L., & Watkins, M. W. (2010). Investigation of the factor structure of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV): Exploratory and higher order factor analyses. Psycholological Assessment, 22(4), 827-836. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020429
Cattell, R. B. (1973). Cattell culture fair intelligence tests. Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.
Cattell, R. B. (1987). Intelligence: Its structure, growth and action. Elsevier Science Publishers.
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 309-319. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.309
Crawford, J. R., Deary, I. J., Starr, J. M., W, & Whalley, L. J. (2001). The NART as an index of prior intellectual functioning: A retrospective validity study covering a 66-year interval. Psychological Medicine, 31(3), 451 – 458. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033291701003634
DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Sage.
Elosua, P., Mujika, J., Almeida, L. S., & Hermosilla, D. (2014). Procedimientos analítico-racionales en la adaptación de tests. Adaptación al español de la batería de pruebas de razonamiento. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 46(2), 117-126. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0120-0534(14)70015-9
Flanagan, D. P., & Dixon, S. G. (2014). The Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory of cognitive abilities. In C. R. Reynolds, K. J. Vannest, & E. Fletcher-Janzen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of special education. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118660584.ese0431
Fry, C. E., Langley, K., & Shelton, K. H. (2017). A systematic review of cognitive functioning among young people who have experienced homelessness, foster care, or poverty. Child Neuropsychology, 23(8), 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1080/09297049.2016.1207758
Gignac, G. E. (2006). Evaluating subtest ‘g’ saturation levels via the single trait-correlated uniqueness (STCU) SEM approach: Evidence in favor of crystallized subtests as the best indicators of ‘g’. Intelligence, 34(1), 29-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2005.06.001
Gignac, G. E., & Szodorai, E. T. (2016). Effect size guidelines for individual differences researchers. Personality and Individual Differences, 102, 74-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.069
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 33(2-3), 61-83. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X
Jensen, A. R. (2001). Vocabulary and general intelligence. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 24(6), 1109-1110. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x01280133
Jodoin, M. G., & Gierl, M. J. (2001). Evaluating type I error and power rates using an effect size measure with the logistic regression procedure for DIF detection. Applied Measurement in Education, 14(4), 329-349. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324818AME1404_2
Kim, H. Y. (2013). Statistical notes for clinical researchers: Assessing normal distribution (2) using skewness and kurtosis. Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics, 38(1), 52-54. https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2013.38.1.52
Kovacs, K., & Conway, A. R. (2016). Process overlap theory: A unified account of the general factor of intelligence. Psychological Inquiry, 27(3), 151-177. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2016.1153946
Luciana, M., Bjork, J. M., Nagel, B. J., Barch, D. M., Gonzalez, R., Nixon, S. J., & Banich, M. T. (2018). Adolescent neurocognitive development and impacts of substance use: Overview of the adolescent brain cognitive development (ABCD) baseline neurocognition battery. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 32, 67-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2018.02.006
Park, D. C. (2000). The basic mechanisms accounting for age related decline in cognitive function. In D. C. Park & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Cognitive aging: A primer (pp. 1-21). Psychology Press.
Piedmont, R. L., & Hyland, M. E. (1993). Inter-item correlation frequency distribution analysis: A method for evaluating scale dimensionality. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(2), 369-378. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164493053002006
Pluck, G. (2019). Preliminary validation of a free-to-use, brief assessment of adult intelligence for research purposes: The Matrix Matching Test. Psychological Reports, 122(2), 709-730. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294118762589
Pluck, G. (2020). A lexical decision task to measure crystallized-verbal ability in Spanish. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 52, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.14349/rlp.2020.v52.1
Pluck, G., Amraoui, D., & Fornell-Villalobos, I. (2021). Brief Communication: Reliability of the D-KEFS Tower Test in samples of children and adolescents in Ecuador. Applied Neuropsychology: Child, 10(2), 158-164. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622965.2019.1629922
Pluck, G., Banda-Cruz, D. R., Andrade-Guimaraes, M. V., & Trueba, A. F. (2018). Socioeconomic deprivation and the development of neuropsychological functions: A study with “street children” in Ecuador. Child Neuropsychology, 24(4), 510-523. https://doi.org/10.1080/09297049.2017.1294150
Pluck, G., & Cerone, A. (2021). A demonstration of the positive manifold of cognitive test inter-correlations, and how it relates to general intelligence, modularity, and lexical knowledge. In T. Fitch, C. Lamm, H. Leder & K. Teßmar-Raible, 43rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. https://escholarship.org/content/qt2b90z3jx/qt2b90z3jx.pdf
Pluck, G., Cordova, M. A., Bock, C., Chalen, I., & Trueba, A. F. (2021). Socio-economic status, executive functions, and theory of mind ability in adolescents: Relationships with language ability and cortisol. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 39(1), 19–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjdp.12354
Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (1998). Raven manual section 4: Advanced Progressive Matrices. Oxford University Press.
Raven, J. C. (1936). Mental tests used in genetic studies: The performance of related individuals on tests mainly educative and mainly reproductive. University of London.
Ritchie, S. J., & Tucker-Drob, E. M. (2018). How much does education improve intelligence? A meta-analysis. Psychological Science, 29(8), 1358-1369. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618774253
Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53-55. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd
Wechsler, D. (1999). The Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence: Manual. The Psychological Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (2004). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fourth Edition-Spanish. The Psychological Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (2012). Escala de Inteligencia de Wechsler Para Adultos-IV. Pearson.
Zumbo, B. D. (1999). A Handbook on the theory and methods of Differential Item Functioning (DIF): Logistic regression modeling as a unitary framework for binary and Likert-type (ordinal) item scores. Directorate of Human Resources Research and Evaluation, Department of National Defense. https://faculty.educ.ubc.ca/zumbo/DIF/handbook.pdf
