 Extending psychometric network analysis: Empirical evidence against g in favor of mutualism?Kees-Jan Kan, Han L.J. van der Maas and Stephen Z. Levine Intelligence, 2019, vol. 73, issue C, 52-62 Abstract: The current study implements psychometric network analysis within the framework of confirmatory (structural equation) modeling. Utility is demonstrated by three applications on independent data sets. The first application uses WAIS data and shows that the same kind of fit statistics can be produced for network models as for traditional confirmatory factor models. This can assist deciding between factor analytical and network theories of intelligence, e.g. g theory versus mutualism theory. The second application uses the ‘Holzinger and Swineford data’ and illustrates how to cross-validate a network. The third application concerns a multigroup analysis on scores on the Brief Test of Adult Cognition by Telephone (BCATC). It exemplifies how to test if network parameters have the same values across groups. Of theoretical interest is that in all applications psychometric network models outperformed previously established (g) factor models. Simulations showed that this was unlikely due to overparameterization. Thus the overall results were more consistent with mutualism theory than with mainstream g theory. The presence of common (e.g. genetic) influences is not excluded, however. Date: 2019 Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:intell:v:73:y:2019:i:c:p:52-62 DOI: 10.1016/j.intell.2018.12.004 Access Statistics for this article Intelligence is currently edited by R.J. Haier More articles in Intelligence from Elsevier |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.