The current article provides a response to concerns raised by Dombrowski, McGill, Canivez, Watkins, & Beaujean (2020) regarding the methodological confounds identified by Decker, Bridges, Luedke, and Eason (2020) for using a bifactor (BF) model and Schmid–Leiman (SL) procedure in previous studies supporting a general factor of intelligence (i.e., “g”). While Dombrowski et al. (2020) raised important theoretical and practical issues, the theoretical justification for using a BF model and SL procedure to identify cognitive dimensions remain unaddressed, as well as significant concerns for using these statistical methods as the basis for informing the use of cognitive tests in clinical applications.
BonifayW.LaneS. P.ReiseS. P. (2017). Three concerns with applying a bifactor model as a structure of psychopathology. Clinical Psychological Science, 5(1), 184-186.
2.
BorsboomD.MellenberghG. J.Van HeerdenJ. (2003). The theoretical status of latent variables. Psychological Review, 110(2), 203.
3.
CanivezG. L.McGillR. J. (2016). Factor structure of the differential ability scales-second edition: Exploratory and hierarchical factor analyses with the core subtests. Psychological Assessment, 28(11), 1475-1488. doi:10.1037/pas0000279
4.
CanivezG. L.McGillR. J.DombrowskiS. C.WatkinsM. W.PritchardA. E.JacobsonL. A. (2020). Construct validity of the WISC-V in clinical cases: Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of the 10 primary subtests. Assessment, 27(2), 274-296.
5.
CanivezG. L.YoungstromE. A. (2019). Challenges to the Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory: Empirical, clinical, and policy implications. Applied Measurement in Education, 32(3), 232-248.
6.
CarrollJ. B. (1995). On methodology in the study of cognitive abilities. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 30(3), 429-452. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr3003_6
7.
ChenF. F.WestS.SousaK. (2006). A comparison of bifactor and second-order models of quality of life. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 41(2), 189-225.
8.
DeckerS. L.BridgesR. M.LuedkeJ. C.EasonM. J. (2020). Dimensional evaluation of cognitive measures: Methodological confounds and theoretical concerns. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 0734282920940879.
9.
DeckerS. L.EnglundJ. A.RobertsA. M. (2014). Higher-order factor structures for the WISC-IV: Implications for neuropsychological test interpretation. Applied Neuropsychology: Child, 3(2), 135-144. doi:10.1080/21622965.2012.737760
10.
DeckerS. L.HaleJ. B.FlanaganD. P. (2013). Professional practice issues in the assessment of cognitive functioning for educational applications. Psychology in the Schools, 50(3), 300-313.
11.
DeMarsC. E. (2013). A tutorial on interpreting bifactor model scores. International Journal of Testing, 13(4), 354-378.
12.
DombrowskiS. C.McGillR. J.CanivezG. L.PetersonC. H. (2019). Investigating the theoretical structure of the differential ability scales-second edition through hierarchical exploratory factor analysis. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 37(1), 91-104.
13.
DombrowskiS. C.McGillR. J.CanivezG. L.WatkinsM. W.BeaujeanA. A. (2020). Factor analysis and variance partitioning in intelligence test research: Clarifying misconceptions. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 0734282920961952.
14.
GignacG. E. (2016). The higher-order model imposes a proportionality constraint: That is why the bifactor model tends to fit better. Intelligence,55, 57-68.
15.
JensenA. R. (1998). The g factor. Westport: Praeger.
16.
JensenA. R. (2002). Psychometric g: Definition and substantiation. In SternbergR. J.GrigorenkoE. L. (Eds.), The general factor of intelligence: How general is it (pp. 39-53). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
17.
LuoY.Al-HarbiK. (2016). The utility of the bifactor method for unidimensionality assessment when other methods disagree: an empirical illustration. SAGE Open, 6(4), 2158244016674513.
18.
McGillR. J.BusseR. T. (2017). When theory trumps science: A critique of the PSW model for SLD identification. Contemporary School Psychology, 21(1), 10-18.
19.
MansolfM.ReiseS. P. (2017). When and why the second-order and bifactor models are distinguishable. Intelligence, 61, 120-129.
20.
Maydeu-OlivaresA.CoffmanD. L. (2006). Random intercept item factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 11(4), 344-362.
21.
MorganG.HodgeK.WellsK.WatkinsM. (2015). Are fit indices biased in favor of bi-factor models in cognitive ability research?: A comparison of fit in correlated factors, higher-order, and bi-factor models via Monte Carlo simulations. Journal of Intelligence, 3(1), 2-20. doi:10.3390/jintelligence3010002
22.
MurrayA. L.JohnsonW. (2013). The limitations of model fit in comparing the bi-factor versus higher-order models of human cognitive ability structure. Intelligence, 41(5), 407-422.
23.
ReiseS. P.BonifayW. E.HavilandM. G. (2013). Scoring and modeling psychological measures in the presence of multidimensionality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95(2), 129-140. doi:10.1080/00223891.2012.725437
24.
ReiseS. P.HoranW. P.BlanchardJ. J. (2011). The challenges of fitting an item response theory model to the social Anhedonia scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 93(3), 213-224. doi:10.1080/00223891.2011.558868
25.
ReiseS. P.MooreT. M.HavilandM. G. (2010). Bifactor models and rotations: Exploring the extent to which multidimensional data yield univocal scale scores. Journal of Personality Assessment, 92(6), 544-559.
26.
ReiseS. P.MorizotJ.HaysR. D. (2007). The role of the bifactor model in resolving dimensionality issues in health outcomes measures. Quality of Life Research, 16(1), 19-31.
27.
RodriguezA.ReiseS. P.HavilandM. G. (2016). Evaluating bifactor models: calculating and interpreting statistical indices. Psychological methods, 21(2), 137.
28.
SchneiderW. J.KaufmanA. S. (2017). Let's not do away with comprehensive cognitive assessments just yet. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 32(1), 8-20.
29.
SpearmanC. (1939). Intelligence tests. The Eugenics Review, 30(4), 249-254.
30.
Van Der MaasH. L. J.DolanC. V.GrasmanR. P. P. P.WichertsJ. M.HuizengaH. M.RaijmakersM. E. J. (2006). A dynamical model of general intelligence: The positive manifold of intelligence by mutualism. Psychological Review, 113(4), 842.
31.
WattsA. L.PooreH. E.WaldmanI. D. (2019). Riskier tests of the validity of the bifactor model of psychopathology. Clinical Psychological Science, 7(6), 1285-1303.
