4.5 Article

A New Lease of Life for Thomson's Bonds Model of Intelligence

期刊

PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW
卷 116, 期 3, 页码 567-579

出版社

AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/a0016262

关键词

bonds; factor analysis; intelligence; Charles Spearman; Godfrey Thomson

资金

  1. Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) [RES-000-23-1246]
  2. The Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC)
  3. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC)
  4. Medical Research Council (MRC)
  5. University of Edinburgh
  6. ESRC [RES-000-23-1246] Funding Source: UKRI
  7. MRC [G0700704] Funding Source: UKRI
  8. Economic and Social Research Council [RES-000-23-1246] Funding Source: researchfish
  9. Medical Research Council [G0700704B, G0700704] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Modern factor analysis is the outgrowth of Spearman's original 2-factor model of intelligence. according to which a mental test score is regarded as the sum of a general factor and a specific factor. As early as 1914, Godfrey Thomson realized that the data did not require this interpretation and he demonstrated this by proposing what became known as his bonds model of intelligence. Van der Maas et al. (2006) have recently drawn attention to what they perceive as difficulties with both models and have proposed a 3rd model. Neither alternative requires the general factor that was at the core of Spearman's idea. Although Thomson's model has been largely forgotten, the authors show that it merits further consideration because it can compete, statistically and biologically, on equal terms with Spearman's model. In particular, they show that it is impossible to distinguish statistically between the 2 models. There are also lessons to be learnt from the way in which Thomson arrived at his model and from the subsequent debate between Spearman and Thomson. The extent to which the recent proposal by van der Maas et al. may offer any advantage over Spearman's and Thomson's models is unclear and requires further investigation.

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

4.5
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