Next Issue
Previous Issue

Table of Contents

J. Intell., Volume 2, Issue 2 (June 2014), Pages 29-55

  • Issues are regarded as officially published after their release is announced to the table of contents alert mailing list.
  • You may sign up for e-mail alerts to receive table of contents of newly released issues.
  • PDF is the official format for papers published in both, html and pdf forms. To view the papers in pdf format, click on the "PDF Full-text" link, and use the free Adobe Readerexternal link to open them.
View options order results:
result details:
Displaying articles 1-3
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

Jump to: Other

Open AccessArticle Sex Differences in Fluid Reasoning: Manifest and Latent Estimates from the Cognitive Abilities Test
J. Intell. 2014, 2(2), 36-55; doi:10.3390/jintelligence2020036
Received: 6 March 2014 / Revised: 19 May 2014 / Accepted: 3 June 2014 / Published: 12 June 2014
PDF Full-text (399 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
The size and nature of sex differences in cognitive ability continues to be a source of controversy. Conflicting findings result from the selection of measures, samples, and methods used to estimate sex differences. Existing sex differences work on the Cognitive Abilities Test [...] Read more.
The size and nature of sex differences in cognitive ability continues to be a source of controversy. Conflicting findings result from the selection of measures, samples, and methods used to estimate sex differences. Existing sex differences work on the Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT) has analyzed manifest variables, leaving open questions about sex differences in latent narrow cognitive abilities and the underlying broad ability of fluid reasoning (Gf). This study attempted to address these questions. A confirmatory bifactor model was used to estimate Gf and three residual narrow ability factors (verbal, quantitative, and figural). We found that latent mean differences were larger than manifest estimates for all three narrow abilities. However, mean differences in Gf were trivial, consistent with previous research. In estimating group variances, the Gf factor showed substantially greater male variability (around 20% greater). The narrow abilities varied: verbal reasoning showed small variability differences while quantitative and figural showed substantial differences in variance (up to 60% greater). These results add precision and nuance to the study of the variability and masking hypothesis. Full article
Figures

Other

Jump to: Research

Open AccessComment Assessing and Revising the Plan for Intelligence Testing
J. Intell. 2014, 2(2), 29-32; doi:10.3390/jintelligence2020029
Received: 16 January 2014 / Revised: 24 March 2014 / Accepted: 24 March 2014 / Published: 4 April 2014
PDF Full-text (171 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
This brief commentary suggests that the usefulness of the concept of intelligence might depend on how one defines intelligence and on whether one is using it for scientific or practical purposes. Furthermore, it is suggested that the concept of working memory must [...] Read more.
This brief commentary suggests that the usefulness of the concept of intelligence might depend on how one defines intelligence and on whether one is using it for scientific or practical purposes. Furthermore, it is suggested that the concept of working memory must not be overlooked when considering individual differences in intelligence. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Intelligence, Where to Look, Where to Go?)
Open AccessComment A New Era of Intelligence Research
J. Intell. 2014, 2(2), 33-35; doi:10.3390/jintelligence2020033
Received: 18 February 2014 / Revised: 10 March 2014 / Accepted: 24 March 2014 / Published: 8 April 2014
Cited by 1 | PDF Full-text (156 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
A consensus definition of intelligence remains elusive but there are many reasons to believe that the field of intelligence is entering a new era of significant progress. The convergence of recent advances in psychometrics, cognitive psychology, and neuroscience has set the stage [...] Read more.
A consensus definition of intelligence remains elusive but there are many reasons to believe that the field of intelligence is entering a new era of significant progress. The convergence of recent advances in psychometrics, cognitive psychology, and neuroscience has set the stage for the development of stronger theories and more sophisticated models. The establishment of a new open access journal as an outlet for new intelligence research is evidence that the new era has begun. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Intelligence, Where to Look, Where to Go?)

Journal Contact

MDPI AG
J. Intell. Editorial Office
St. Alban-Anlage 66, 4052 Basel, Switzerland
jintelligence@mdpi.com
Tel. +41 61 683 77 34
Fax: +41 61 302 89 18
Editorial Board
Contact Details Submit to J. Intell.
Back to Top