4.2 Article

Genetic and environmental influences on general cognitive ability: Is g a valid latent construct?

Journal

INTELLIGENCE
Volume 43, Issue -, Pages 65-76

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.intell.2014.01.008

Keywords

g; Twin study; Heritability; Multivariate analysis; General cognitive ability

Funding

  1. NIA NIH HHS [R01 AG022381, R01 AG018384, R01 AG022982, R01 AG018386] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Despite an extensive literature, the g construct remains a point of debate. Different models explaining the observed relationships among cognitive tests make distinct assumptions about the role of g in relation to individual tests and specific cognitive domains. Surprisingly, these different models and their corresponding assumptions are rarely tested against one another. In addition to the comparison of distinct models, a multivariate application of the twin design offers a unique opportunity to test whether there is support for g as a latent construct with its own genetic and environmental influences, or whether the relationships among cognitive tests are instead driven by independent genetic and environmental factors. Here we tested multiple distinct models of the relationships among cognitive tests utilizing data from the Vietnam Era Twin Study of Aging (VETSA), a study of middle-aged male twins. Results indicated that a hierarchical (higher-order) model with a latent g phenotype, as well as specific cognitive domains, was best supported by the data. The latent g factor was highly heritable (86%), and accounted for most, but not all, of the genetic effects in specific cognitive domains and elementary cognitive tests. By directly testing multiple competing models of the relationships among cognitive tests in a genetically-informative design, we are able to provide stronger support than in prior studies for g being a valid latent construct. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available