4.6 Review

Comparative psychometrics: establishing what differs is central to understanding what evolves

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2017.0283

关键词

individual differences; construct validity; executive functions; inhibitory control; comparative cognition; multi-trait multi-method test batteries

类别

资金

  1. 'INQMINDS' ERC Starting Grant [SEP-210159400]
  2. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada [SSHRC 435-2016-1051]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cognitive abilities cannot be measured directly. What we can measure is individual variation in task performance. In this paper, we first make the case for why we should be interested in mapping individual differences in task performance onto particular cognitive abilities: we suggest that it is crucial for examining the causes and consequences of variation both within and between species. As a case study, we examine whether multiple measures of inhibitory control for non-human animals do indeed produce correlated task performance; however, no clear pattern emerges that would support the notion of a common cognitive ability underpinning individual differences in performance. We advocate a psychometric approach involving a three-step programme to make theoretical and empirical progress: first, we need tasks that reveal signature limits in performance. Second, we need to assess the reliability of individual differences in task performance. Third, multi-trait multi-method test batteries will be instrumental in validating cognitive abilities. Together, these steps will help us to establish what varies between individuals that could impact their fitness and ultimately shape the course of the evolution of animal minds. Finally, we propose executive functions, including working memory, inhibitory control and attentional shifting, as a sensible starting point for this endeavour. This article is part of the theme issue 'Causes and consequences of individual differences in cognitive abilities'.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据