Cognitive-achievement relations research suggests that cognitive abilities are instrumental for academic skill development. This study examined cognitive-achievement relations with the newly revised Woodcock–Johnson V (WJ V) standardization sample across the lifespan (ages 6–90+) for reading, writing, and mathematics using multi-group structural equation modeling. Integrated models of achievement were used, where cognitive abilities were predictors of all academic skills, and basic academic skills were predictors of advanced academic skills. Many results were consistent with previous research, such as general intelligence (g) having strong indirect effects on academic skills, basic academic skills were strong predictors of advanced academic skills, Auditory Processing was a strong predictor of Basic Reading Skills and Spelling, and Fluid Reasoning was a strong predictor of Math Calculation and Math Problem Solving. Some differences that have not been observed in previous research were that Auditory Processing was a stronger predictor of Basic Reading Skills and Spelling than has been found in previous research, and Visual Processing was a consistent predictor of Math Calculation across the lifespan. Results suggest that cognitive abilities measured using the WJ V are important predictors of academic skills, and cognitive ability scores may provide insights for evaluations conducted for academic difficulties.
BeaujeanA. A.ParkinJ.ParkerS. (2014). Comparing Cattell–Horn–Carroll factor models: Differences between bifactor and higher order factor models in predicting language achievement. Psychological Assessment, 26(3), 789–805. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036745
2.
BensonN. (2008). Cattell-Horn-Carroll cognitive abilities and reading achievement. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 26(1), 27–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282907301424
3.
BerningerV. W.GrahamS. (1998). Language by hand: A synthesis of a decade of research on handwriting. Handwriting Review, 12(1), 11–25.
4.
CaemmererJ. M.KeithT. Z.ReynoldsM. R. (2020). Beyond individual intelligence tests: Application of Cattell-Horn-Carroll Theory. Intelligence, 79, 101433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2020.101433
5.
CaemmererJ. M.MaddocksD. L. S.KeithT. Z.ReynoldsM. R. (2018). Effects of cognitive abilities on child and youth academic achievement: Evidence from the WISC-V and WIAT-III. Intelligence, 68(1), 6–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2018.02.005
6.
CaemmererJ. M.ReynoldsM. R.KeithT. Z. (2023). Beyond individual tests: Youth’s cognitive abilities on their math and writing skills. Learning and Individual Differences, 102, 102271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2023.102271
7.
CaemmererJ. M.ScudderA. M.KeithT. Z.ReynoldsM. R. (2024). Beyond individual tests: Youths’ cognitive abilities, basic reading, and writing. Journal of Intelligence, 12(11), 120. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence12110120
8.
Calderón-TenaC. O. (2016). Mathematical development: The role of broad cognitive processes. Educational Psychology in Practice, 32(2), 107–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/02667363.2015.1114468
9.
Calderón-TenaC. O.CaterinoL. C. (2016). Mathematics learning development: The role of long-term retrieval. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(7), 1377–1385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9655-0
10.
CanivezG. L. (2013). Incremental criterion validity of WAIS–IV factor index scores: Relationships with WIAT–II and WIAT–III subtest and composite scores. Psychological Assessment, 25(2), 484–495. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032092
11.
CanivezG. L.DombrowskiS. C.WatkinsM. W. (2018). Factor structure of the WISC-V in four standardization age groups: Exploratory and hierarchical factor analyses with the 16 primary and secondary subtests. Psychology in the Schools, 55(7), 741–769. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22138
12.
CheungG. W.RensvoldR. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
13.
CormierD. C.BulutO.McGrewK. S.FrisonJ. (2016). The role of Cattell–Horn–Carroll (CHC) cognitive abilities in predicting writing achievement during the school-age year. Psychology in the Schools, 53(8), 787–803. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21945
14.
CormierD. C.McGrewK. S.BulutO.FunamotoA. (2017). Revisiting the relations between the WJ-IV measures of Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) cognitive abilities and reading achievement during the school-age years. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 35(8), 731–754. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282916659208
15.
DombrowskiS. C.McGillR. J.CanivezG. L.WatkinsM. W.PritchardA. E.JacobsonL. A. (2025). Conjectures and refutations in cognitive ability structural validity research: Insights from Bayesian structural equation modeling. Journal of School Psychology, 110, 101432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2025.101432
16.
EhriL. C.NunesS. R.WillowsD. M.SchusterB. V.Yaghoub-ZadehZ.ShanahanT. (2001). Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(3), 250–287. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.36.3.2
17.
FlanaganD. P.OrtizS. O.AlfonsoV. C.MascoloJ. T. (2006). The achievement test desk reference (2nd ed.). Wiley. ATDR-2.
18.
FloydR.MeisingerE.GreggN.KeithT. Z. (2012). An explanation of reading comprehension across development using models from Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory: Support for integrative models of reading. Psychology in the Schools, 49(8), 725–743. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21633
19.
FloydR. G.KeithT. Z.TaubG. E.McGrewK. S. (2007). Cattell-Horn-Carroll cognitive abilities and their effects on reading decoding skills: g has indirect effects, more specific abilities have direct effects. School Psychology Quarterly, 22(2), 200–233. https://doi.org/10.1037/1045-3830.22.2.200
20.
HajovskyD.ReynoldsM. R.FloydR. G.TurekJ. J.KeithT. Z. (2014). A multigroup investigation of latent cognitive abilities and reading achievement relations. School Psychology Review, 43(4), 385–406. https://doi.org/10.17105/SPR-13-0060.1
21.
HajovskyD. B.NiilekselaC. R.OlsenS. C.SekulaM. K. (2023). Do cognitive-achievement relations vary by general ability level?Journal of Intelligence, 11(9), 177. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11090177
22.
HajovskyD. B.VilleneuveE. F.ReynoldsM. R.NiilekselaC. R.MasonB. A.ShudakN. J. (2018). Cognitive ability influences on written expression: Evidence for developmental and sex-based differences in school-age children. Journal of School Psychology, 67, 104–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2017.09.001
23.
HattieJ. (2023). Visible learning: The sequel: A synthesis of over 2,100 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003380542
HornJ. L.BlanksonN. (2005). Foundations for better understanding of cognitive abilities. In FlanaganD. P.HarrisonP. L. (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 41–68). The Guilford Press.
26.
KamphausR. W.WinsorA. P.RoweE. W.KimS. (2018). A history of intelligence test interpretation. In FlanaganD. P.HarrisonP. L. (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (3rd ed., pp. 56–70). The Guilford Press.
27.
KaufmanA. S.KaufmanN. L. (2004a). Kaufman assessment battery for children-Second edition: Technical manual. American Guidance Service.
28.
KaufmanA. S.KaufmanN. L. (2004b). Kaufman test of educational achievement-Second edition: Technical manual. American Guidance Service.
29.
KavaleK. A.FornessS. R. (1984). A meta-analysis of the validity of Wechsler scale profiles and recategorizations: Patterns or parodies?Learning Disability Quarterly, 7(2), 136–156. https://doi.org/10.2307/1510314
30.
KeithT. Z. (1999). Effects of general and specific abilities on student achievement: Similarities and differences across ethnic groups. School Psychology Quarterly, 14(3), 239–262. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0089008
31.
KeithT. Z. (2019). Multiple regression and beyond: An introduction to multiple regression and structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). Routledge.
32.
KilpatrickD. A. (2015). Essentials of assessing, preventing, and overcoming reading difficulties. John Wiley.
33.
KovacsK.ConwayA. R. A. (2016). Process overlap theory: A unified account of the general factor of intelligence. Psychological Inquiry, 27(3), 151–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2016.1153946
34.
LaForteE. M.DaileyD.McGrewK. S. (2025). Technical manual. Woodcock-Johnson V. Riverside Assessments, LLC.
35.
LittleT. D.JorgensenT. D.LangK. M.MooreE. W. G. (2014). On the joys of missing data. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 39(2), 151–162. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jst048
36.
LiuJ.PengP.LuoL. (2020). The relation between family socioeconomic status and academic achievement in China: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 32(1), 49–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09494-0
MayerR. E. (1998). Cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational aspects of problem solving. Instructional Science, 26(1-2), 49–63. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003088013286
39.
McDermottP. A.FantuzzoJ. W.GluttingJ. J. (1990). Just say no to subtest analysis: A critique on Wechsler theory and Practice. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 8(3), 290–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/073428299000800307
40.
McDermottP. A.GluttingJ. J. (1997). Informing stylistic learning behavior, disposition, and achievement through ability subtests: Or more illusions of meaning?School Psychology Review, 26(2), 163–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.1997.12085856
41.
McGillR. J.DombrowskiS. C.CanivezG. L. (2018). Cognitive profile analysis in school psychology: History, issues, and continued concerns. Journal of School Psychology, 71, 108–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2018.10.007
42.
McGrewK. S. (2023). Carroll’s three-stratum (3S) cognitive ability theory at 30 years: Impact, 3S-CHC theory clarification, structural replication, and cognitive–achievement psychometric network analysis extension. Journal of Intelligence, 11(2), 32. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11020032
43.
McGrewK. S.MatherN.LaForteE. M.WendlingB. J. (2025). Woodcock-Johnson V. Riverside Assessments, LLC.
44.
McGrewK. S.WendlingB. J. (2010). Cattell-Horn-Carroll cognitive-achievement relations: What we have learned from the past 20 years of research. Psychology in the Schools, 47(7), 651–675. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20497
45.
NiilekselaC. R.ReynoldsM. R.KeithT. Z.McGrewK. S. (2016). A special validity study of the Woodcock–Johnson IV: Acting on evidence for specific abilities. In FlanaganD. P.AlfonsoV. C. (Eds.), WJ-IV clinical use and interpretation: Scientist-practitioner perspectives (pp. 65–106). Elsevier.
46.
ParkinJ. R.BeaujeanA. A. (2012). The effects of Wechsler intelligence scale for children-fourth edition cognitive abilities on math achievement. Journal of School Psychology, 50(1), 113–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2011.08.003
47.
Quílez-RobresA.MoyanoN.Cortés-PascualA. (2021). Motivational, emotional, and social factors explain academic achievement in children aged 6–12 years: A meta-analysis. Education Sciences, 11(9), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11090513
48.
ReynoldsM. R.KeithT. Z. (2017). Multi-group and hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—fifth edition: What does it measure?Intelligence, 62, 31–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2017.02.005
49.
ReynoldsM. R.KeithT. Z.FlanaganD. P.AlfonsoV. C. (2013). A cross-battery, reference variable, confirmatory factor analytic investigation of the CHC taxonomy. Journal of School Psychology, 51(4), 535–555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2013.02.003
50.
Schermelleh-EngelK.MoosbruggerH.MüllerH. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23–74. https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.12784
51.
SchneiderW. J.McGrewK. S. (2018). The Cattell–horn–Carroll theory of intelligence. In FlanaganD. P.McDonoughE. M. (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment (4th ed., pp. 73–163). Guilford Press.
52.
SirinS. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 417–453. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075003417
53.
SpiegelJ. A.GoodrichJ. M.MorrisB. M.OsborneC. M.LoniganC. J. (2021). Relations between executive functions and academic outcomes in elementary school children: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 147(4), 329–351. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000322
54.
VanderwoodM. L.McGrewK. S.FlanaganD. P.KeithT. Z. (2002). The contribution of general and specific cognitive abilities to reading achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 13(2), 159–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1041-6080(02)00077-8
55.
VilleneuveE. F.HajovskyD. B.MasonB. A.LewnoB. M. (2019). Cognitive ability and math computation developmental relations with math problem solving: An integrated, multigroup approach. School Psychology, 34(1), 96–108. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000267
56.
WechslerD. (2009). Wechsler individual achievement test (3rd ed.). NCS Pearson.
57.
WechslerD. (2014). Wechsler intelligence Scale for children (5th ed.). Pearson.
58.
WoodsI. L.Jr.NiilekselaC.FloydR. G. (2021). Do Cattell-horn-Carroll cognitive abilities predict reading achievement similarly for Black children as for other racial/ethnic groups?Contemporary School Psychology, 25(2), 183–199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-020-00338-1
59.
YoungstromE. A.KogosJ. L.GluttingJ. J. (1999). Incremental efficacy of differential ability scales factor scores in predicting individual achievement criteria. School Psychology Quarterly, 14(1), 26–39. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0088996
60.
ZaboskiB. A. I. I.KranzlerJ. H.GageN. A. (2018). Meta-analysis of the relationship between academic achievement and broad abilities of the Cattell-Horn-Carroll Theory. Journal of School Psychology, 71, 42–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2018.10.001
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
