Mason Archival Repository Service

Fluid and Crystallized G vs. Multiple Intelligence: A Structural Equation Modeling Study of Human Intelligence Theories & Measurement

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisor Sheridan, Kimberly
dc.contributor.author Eastes, Bryan
dc.creator Eastes, Bryan
dc.date 2016-05-15
dc.date.accessioned 2017-01-26T22:08:10Z
dc.date.available 2017-01-26T22:08:10Z
dc.identifier.uri https://hdl.handle.net/1920/10516
dc.description.abstract The thesis investigated debated intelligence theories: Cattell’s (1943) “Theory of Fluid and Crystallized Intelligence” and Gardner’s (1983) “Theory of M.I.” The research asks: Which existing theory-based and hypothetically based measurement models of intelligence fit the measurement data better? How does a traditional vs. modified M.I. Theory measurement model fit? How does a combined measurement model of the theories fit? Participants (n=287) were students (age 18-25) from a top-tier East-Coast university. Approximate statistical power is .90 with effect size of .5 (p≤.05). Participants were administered the Reynolds Adaptable Intelligence Test and Multiple Intelligence Developmental Assessment Scales. Structural equation modeling revealed better fit for the “Theory of Fluid and Crystallized Intelligence” data (χ2(4) =8.08, p=.09; CMIN/d.f.=2.02; RMSEA= .06; TLI= .98; CFI= .99; IFI=.99; SRMR=.0221). The traditional Theory of M.I.” model fit was insupportable (χ2(300) =1441.448, p<.000; CMIN/d.f.=4.80; RMSEA= .12; TLI= .61; CFI= .64; IFI=.65; SRMR=.2239), but alternative M.I. models were supported. A correlated M.I. model (χ2(264) =569.09, p<.001; CMIN/d.f.=2.16; RMSEA= .06; TLI= .88; CFI= .90; IFI= .91; SRMR=.06) and 4-factor model M.I. with distinct bodily-kinesthetic and musical talent (χ2(267) =526.32, p<.001; CMIN/d.f.=2.12; RMSEA= .06; GFI=.91; TLI= .92; CFI= .94; IFI= .94; SRMR=.06) show acceptable to good fit. A M.I. Indicator & R.A.I.T. TII to g SCU Model shows good fit (χ2(120) =247.56, p<.001; CMIN/d.f.=2.06; RMSEA= .06; TLI= .89; GFI=.94; CFI= .96; IFI= .96; SRMR=.10). Current findings are further discussed in relation to analogous studies.
dc.language.iso en_US en_US
dc.rights Copyright 2016 Bryan Eastes en_US
dc.subject intelligence theory en_US
dc.subject multiple intelligence en_US
dc.subject structural equation modeling en_US
dc.subject fluid and crystallized intelligence en_US
dc.title Fluid and Crystallized G vs. Multiple Intelligence: A Structural Equation Modeling Study of Human Intelligence Theories & Measurement en_US
dc.type Thesis en_US
thesis.degree.name Master of Science Educational Psychology en_US
thesis.degree.level Master's en_US
thesis.degree.discipline Educational Psychology en_US
thesis.degree.grantor George Mason University en_US


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search MARS


Browse

My Account

Statistics