An Experimental Analysis of Dynamic Hypotheses About Cognitive Abilities and Achievement From Childhood to Early Adulthood.
Abstract
This study examined the dynamics of cognitive abilities and academic achievement from childhood to early adulthood. Predictions about time-dependent "coupling" relations between cognition and achievement based on R. B. Cattell's (1971, 1987) investment hypothesis were evaluated using linear dynamic models applied to longitudinal data (N=672). Contrary to Cattell's hypothesis, a first set of findings indicated that fluid and crystallized abilities, as defined by the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery-Revised (WJ-R; R. W. Woodcock & M. B. Johnson, 1989-1990), were not dynamically coupled with each other over time. A second set of findings provided support for the original predictions and indicated that fluid ability was a leading indicator of changes in achievement measures (i.e., quantitative ability and general academic knowledge). The findings of this study suggest that the dynamics of cognitive abilities and academic achievement follow a more complex pattern than that specified by Cattell's investment hypothesis.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The investment hypothesis has longitudinal support: fluid intelligence developmentally predicts later academic knowledge, particularly quantitative ability, and this relation is strongest in childhood.
“the investment hypothesis has some longitudinal support indicating that fluid intelligence developmentally predicts later academic knowledge, particularly quantitative ability, and that this relation is strongest in childhood (Ferrer & McArdle 2004).”
From School Readiness and Self-Regulation: A Developmental Psychobiological Approach (2015) · cites this paper as Ferrer & McArdle 2004
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 63 · Cited by 160
- Authors
- Ferrer, E., & McArdle, J. J.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Davis (US)
- University of Virginia (US)
- ORCID
- Ferrer, Emilio
- Venue
- Developmental Psychology
- Published
- 2004
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 935-952
- ISSN
- 0012-1649 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-0599
- OpenAlex
- W1977947651
- Cited by
- 160
- References
- 63
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 7.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Developmental Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute on Aging (AG-07407, T32AG020500, T32 AG20500-01)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Aging and Gerontology Research
- Keywords
- fluid intelligence, crystallized intelligence, academic performance, cognitive development, childhood to early adulthood, quantitative ability, academic knowledge
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Child, Child Development, Child, Preschool, Cognition, Educational Status, Female, Humans, Infant, Male, Models, Psychological, Knowledge
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
