Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the differentiation between cognitive abilities assessed by the Jouve Cerebrals Crystallized Educational Scale (JCCES) and General Ability Measure for Adults (GAMA). A sample of 63 participants completed both JCCES and GAMA subtests. Pearson correlation and factor analysis were used to analyze the data. The results revealed significant positive correlations between most of the JCCES subtests, while correlations between GAMA and JCCES subtests were generally lower. Factor analysis extracted two distinct factors, with JCCES subtests loading on one factor and GAMA subtests loading on the other. The findings supported the hypothesis that JCCES and GAMA measure distinct cognitive abilities, with JCCES assessing crystallized abilities and GAMA evaluating nonverbal and figurative aspects of general cognitive abilities. This differentiation has important implications for the interpretation of JCCES and GAMA scores and their application in educational, clinical, and research settings.
Keywords: cognitive abilities, JCCES, GAMA, factor analysis, crystallized intelligence, nonverbal cognitive abilities
Introduction
Psychometrics has advanced significantly over the years, with numerous theories and instruments developed to assess various aspects of human cognitive abilities (Embretson & Reise, 2000). Among these, both crystallized and fluid intelligence have been widely acknowledged as two essential dimensions of cognitive functioning (Cattell, 1987; Horn & Cattell, 1966). Crystallized intelligence refers to the acquired knowledge and skills gained through education and experience, while fluid intelligence involves the capacity for abstract reasoning, problem-solving, and adapting to novel situations (Cattell, 1987).
Instruments designed to measure these cognitive abilities often target specific domains, such as the Jouve Cerebrals Crystallized Educational Scale (JCCES) for crystallized intelligence (Jouve, 2010) and the General Ability Measure for Adults (GAMA) for nonverbal, figurative aspects of general cognitive abilities (Naglieri & Bardos, 1997). However, the relationship between these instruments and the cognitive domains they assess remains an area of ongoing research.
The present study aims to investigate the relationship between the JCCES and GAMA subtest scores to determine whether these instruments measure distinct cognitive abilities. In particular, the research hypothesis posits that the JCCES and GAMA subtests will load on separate factors in factor analysis, indicating that they assess different aspects of cognitive functioning. This hypothesis is grounded in previous literature on the differentiation of crystallized and fluid intelligence (Cattell, 1987; Horn & Cattell, 1966) and the design of the JCCES and GAMA instruments (Jouve, 2010a, 2010b, 2010c; Naglieri & Bardos, 1997).
To test the research hypothesis, the study employs Pearson correlation and principal factor analysis with Varimax rotation. These methods are widely used in psychometrics to explore the underlying structure of datasets and identify latent factors that explain shared variance among variables (Fabrigar et al., 1999; Stevens, 2009). Additionally, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure and Cronbach’s alpha are computed to assess the sampling adequacy and internal consistency of the factors, respectively (Field, 2009).
The investigation of the relationship between the JCCES and GAMA subtest scores has practical implications for the assessment of cognitive abilities in various settings, including educational, clinical, and research contexts. By understanding the distinct cognitive domains assessed by these instruments, practitioners can make better-informed decisions about their use and interpretation, leading to more accurate and comprehensive evaluations of an individual’s cognitive profile.
Method
Research Design
The study employed a correlational research design to investigate the relationship between cognitive abilities as assessed by the Jouve Cerebrals Crystallized Educational Scale (JCCES) and the General Ability Measure for Adults (GAMA). The correlational design was chosen to identify patterns of association between the two sets of cognitive measures without manipulating any variables (Creswell, 2014).
Participants
A total of 63 participants were recruited for the study. Demographic information regarding age, gender, and ethnicity was collected but not used in this study. The participants were selected based on their willingness to participate and their ability to complete the JCCES and GAMA assessments. No exclusion criteria were set.
Materials
The JCCES is a measure of crystallized cognitive abilities, which reflect an individual’s acquired knowledge and skills (Cattell, 1971). It consists of three subtests: Verbal Analogies (VA), Mathematical Problems (MP), and General Knowledge (GK).
The GAMA is a standardized measure of nonverbal and figurative general cognitive abilities (Naglieri & Bardos, 1997). It consists of four subtests: Matching (MAT), Analogies (ANA), Sequences (SEQ), and Construction (CON).
Procedures
Data collection was conducted in a quiet and well-lit testing environment. Participants first completed the JCCES, followed by the GAMA. Standardized instructions were provided to ensure that participants understood the requirements of each subtest. The JCCES and GAMA were administered according to their respective guidelines.
Statistical Analyses
Data were analyzed using Excel. Descriptive statistics were computed for the JCCES and GAMA subtest scores. Pearson correlations were calculated to examine the relationships between the JCCES and GAMA subtests. Principal factor analysis with Varimax rotation was conducted to explore the underlying structure of the dataset and identify latent factors that could explain the shared variance among the subtests. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy and Cronbach’s alpha were calculated to assess the quality of the factor analysis results (Cronbach, 1951).
Results
The research hypotheses were tested using Pearson correlation and principal factor analysis with Varimax rotation. The initial communalities were computed using squared multiple correlations, and the analysis was stopped based on convergence criteria (0.0001) and a maximum of 50 iterations. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure was used to assess the sampling adequacy, and Cronbach’s alpha was computed to determine the internal consistency of the factors.
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
The sample consisted of 63 participants, with no missing data for the Jouve Cerebrals Crystallized Educational Scale (JCCES) and General Ability Measure for Adults (GAMA) subtest scores. The Pearson correlation matrix revealed significant positive correlations between most of the subtests.
In this study, the strongest correlations were observed between the JCCES subtests: Verbal Analogies (VA) and General Knowledge (GK) had a correlation of 0.712, indicating a strong positive relationship between these measures of crystallized abilities. Similarly, the VA and Mathematical Problems (MP) subtests were positively correlated (r = 0.542), suggesting a moderate relationship between these variables (Stevens, 2009). The MP and GK subtests also had a moderate positive correlation of 0.590.
Correlations between GAMA subtests and JCCES subtests were generally lower, with the highest correlation observed between MP and the GAMA Matching (MAT) subtest (r = 0.427). This suggests a moderate positive relationship between the nonverbal cognitive abilities assessed by GAMA and the crystallized mathematical abilities assessed by the JCCES MP subtest. The correlations between GAMA Analogies (ANA) and JCCES subtests were weak to moderate, ranging from 0.141 (ANA-GK) to 0.298 (ANA-VA). The GAMA Sequences (SEQ) subtest had weak correlations with JCCES subtests, ranging from 0.076 (SEQ-VA) to 0.391 (SEQ-MP). Lastly, the GAMA Construction (CON) subtest had weak to moderate correlations with JCCES subtests, ranging from 0.169 (CON-GK) to 0.452 (CON-MP).
Factor Analysis
The factor analysis aimed to explore the underlying structure of the dataset and to identify the latent factors that could explain the shared variance among the JCCES and GAMA subtests. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was computed to ensure that the sample size was suitable for conducting factor analysis. A KMO value of 0.695 was obtained, which is considered adequate for factor analysis, as it is above the commonly accepted threshold of 0.6.
Two factors were extracted from the data based on their eigenvalues, which represent the total variance explained by each factor. Factor 1 (F1) had an eigenvalue of 2.904 and accounted for 41.482% of the variance, while Factor 2 (F2) had an eigenvalue of 1.331 and accounted for 19.016% of the variance. The cumulative explained variance by both factors was 60.498%, indicating that a substantial proportion of the total variance in the dataset was explained by these two factors.
To better interpret the factors, Varimax rotation was applied to achieve a simpler factor structure by maximizing the variance of factor loadings within each factor. The rotation resulted in two factors, denoted as D1 and D2, which accounted for 32.256% and 28.242% of the variance, respectively.
The rotated factor pattern demonstrated the relationships between the original subtests and the rotated factors. The GAMA subtests, including Analogies (ANA), Sequences (SEQ), and Construction (CON), had high factor loadings on D1 (0.685, 0.911, and 0.841, respectively). This indicates that these subtests share a common underlying factor, which is represented by D1.
In contrast, the JCCES subtests, including Verbal Analogies (VA), Mathematical Problems (MP), and General Knowledge (GK), had high factor loadings on D2 (0.796, 0.687, and 0.845, respectively). This suggests that these subtests also share a common underlying factor, which is represented by D2.
Internal Consistency
The internal consistency of the factors was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha. The results showed that both factors had good internal consistency, with D1 having a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.862 and D2 having a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.762.
Interpretation and Significance
The factor analysis results provided strong evidence for the research hypothesis that the JCCES and GAMA measure distinct cognitive abilities. The separate cognitive domains represented by the two factors were clearly differentiated by the respective loadings of the JCCES and GAMA subtests.
Factor D1 was primarily associated with the GAMA subtests, which include Matching (MAT), Analogies (ANA), Sequences (SEQ), and Construction (CON). These subtests focus on nonverbal and figurative aspects of general cognitive abilities, capturing skills such as pattern recognition, abstract reasoning, and visual-spatial problem-solving. The high loadings of the GAMA subtests on factor D1 (ANA = 0.685, SEQ = 0.911, CON = 0.841) indicate that this factor reflects the underlying construct of nonverbal and figurative general cognitive abilities, as assessed by the GAMA.
Factor D2, on the other hand, was predominantly associated with the JCCES subtests, which include Verbal Analogies (VA), Mathematical Problems (MP), and General Knowledge (GK). These subtests are designed to measure crystallized abilities, reflecting the accumulated knowledge and skills acquired through education and experience. The high loadings of the JCCES subtests on factor D2 (VA = 0.796, MP = 0.687, GK = 0.845) suggest that this factor represents the underlying construct of crystallized cognitive abilities, as measured by the JCCES.
The distinct loadings of the JCCES and GAMA subtests on separate factors highlight the differences in the cognitive abilities assessed by these instruments. The JCCES primarily focuses on crystallized abilities, capturing an individual’s acquired knowledge and skills, whereas the GAMA assesses nonverbal and figurative aspects of general cognitive abilities, tapping into more abstract and fluid cognitive processes. This differentiation between the two instruments supports the research hypothesis and emphasizes the unique contributions of each instrument in evaluating cognitive functioning.
The significant differences between the cognitive domains represented by the two factors have important implications for the interpretation of the JCCES and GAMA scores. These findings suggest that the JCCES and GAMA should be considered complementary tools in assessing an individual’s cognitive abilities, as they provide unique insights into different aspects of cognitive functioning. Using both instruments together can offer a more comprehensive understanding of an individual’s cognitive profile, facilitating better-informed decisions in educational, clinical, and research settings.
Limitations
There are some limitations to the study that should be considered. First, the sample size was relatively small (N = 63), which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Second, no demographic data were available for the participants, making it difficult to assess whether the sample was representative of the larger population.
Discussion
Interpretation of the Results and Comparison with Previous Research
The results of this study provide strong support for the research hypothesis that the Jouve Cerebrals Crystallized Educational Scale (JCCES) and General Ability Measure for Adults (GAMA) assess distinct cognitive abilities. The factor analysis revealed two separate factors, with JCCES subtests loading on one factor (D2) and GAMA subtests loading on another factor (D1). This finding is consistent with the theoretical distinction between crystallized and fluid cognitive abilities, as proposed by Cattell (1971) and supported by subsequent research (e.g., Carroll, 1993; Horn & Cattell, 1967).
The observed differentiation between the JCCES and GAMA is consistent with previous research demonstrating that crystallized abilities are more closely related to acquired knowledge and skills, while fluid abilities are more associated with abstract reasoning, pattern recognition, and visual-spatial problem-solving (Cattell, 1971; Horn & Cattell, 1967). This distinction is important, as it highlights the unique contributions of each instrument in evaluating cognitive functioning.
Implications for Theory, Practice, and Future Research
The findings of this study have important implications for both theory and practice. The clear differentiation between the JCCES and GAMA supports the notion that crystallized and fluid cognitive abilities are distinct constructs, which can be measured separately using appropriate assessment tools. This distinction has practical implications for educational, clinical, and research settings, where a comprehensive understanding of an individual’s cognitive profile is essential for informed decision-making.
For example, in educational settings, the use of both the JCCES and GAMA can provide valuable information about a student’s cognitive strengths and weaknesses, facilitating targeted interventions to support learning and development. In clinical settings, the combined use of these instruments can help clinicians identify cognitive impairments associated with various neurological and psychiatric conditions and inform treatment planning.
Future research could extend the current study by examining the relationship between the JCCES and GAMA and other cognitive measures, further exploring the distinctiveness and convergent validity of these instruments. Additionally, the research could investigate the potential impact of demographic factors, such as age, education, and cultural background, on the performance in the JCCES and GAMA subtests, enhancing our understanding of the factors that may influence the assessment of cognitive abilities.
Limitations
Despite the significant findings of this study, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, the relatively small sample size (N = 63) may limit the generalizability of the findings. Future research with larger, more diverse samples is needed to confirm the observed differentiation between the JCCES and GAMA.
Second, the lack of demographic data for the participants precludes an analysis of potential demographic factors that may influence the observed relationships between the JCCES and GAMA subtests. Future research should collect demographic information to explore potential differences in cognitive abilities based on factors such as age, education, and cultural background.
Directions for Future Research
Future research could build on the findings of this study by exploring the relationships between the JCCES, GAMA, and other cognitive measures to further investigate the distinctiveness and convergent validity of these instruments. Moreover, researchers could examine the potential impact of demographic factors, such as age, education level, and cultural background, on performance in the JCCES and GAMA subtests. This would provide valuable insights into the factors that may influence the assessment of cognitive abilities and contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the constructs measured by these instruments.
Additionally, future research could investigate the predictive validity of the JCCES and GAMA in various applied settings, such as academic performance, vocational success, or clinical outcomes. This would help determine the practical utility of these instruments in making informed decisions across a range of contexts.
It would also be beneficial to examine the potential moderating role of factors such as motivation, test-taking strategies, or test anxiety on the relationship between the JCCES and GAMA subtests. This could provide valuable information regarding the potential influence of non-cognitive factors on cognitive assessment outcomes.
Longitudinal studies could be conducted to explore the developmental trajectories of crystallized and fluid cognitive abilities as assessed by the JCCES and GAMA, as well as the potential factors that may influence these trajectories, such as educational experiences or cognitive interventions. Such studies would contribute to a deeper understanding of the development and change of cognitive abilities over time.
Finally, future research could explore the potential benefits of integrating the JCCES and GAMA into comprehensive cognitive assessment batteries, alongside other cognitive measures assessing additional domains (e.g., working memory, processing speed, or executive functioning). This would help determine the optimal combination of measures for assessing an individual’s cognitive profile in a comprehensive and efficient manner.
Conclusion
The present study demonstrated that the JCCES and GAMA assess distinct cognitive abilities, with the JCCES primarily measuring crystallized abilities and the GAMA focusing on nonverbal and figurative aspects of general cognitive abilities. The strong positive correlations observed between JCCES subtests and the moderate positive correlations between GAMA and JCCES subtests support these findings. Factor analysis further substantiated the differentiation between the two instruments, revealing two distinct factors, each associated with either the JCCES or GAMA subtests.
These findings have important implications for the broader field of cognitive assessment, suggesting that the JCCES and GAMA should be employed as complementary tools to obtain a comprehensive understanding of an individual’s cognitive profile. This comprehensive approach can better inform decisions in educational, clinical, and research settings. However, the study’s small sample size and lack of demographic information limit the generalizability of the results.
Future research should focus on replicating these findings in larger, more diverse samples and exploring the potential utility of combining the JCCES and GAMA to predict various cognitive and academic outcomes. Additionally, the research could investigate the relationship between these cognitive abilities and other relevant factors, such as socioeconomic background or educational attainment. Overall, this study highlights the importance of considering both crystallized and nonverbal cognitive abilities in cognitive assessment and emphasizes the unique contributions of the JCCES and GAMA in evaluating cognitive functioning.
References
Cattell, R. B. (1971). Abilities: Their structure, growth, and action. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Cattell, R. B. (1987). Intelligence: Its Structure, Growth and Action. New York: North-Holland.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410605269
Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). London, UK: Sage Publications.
Horn, J. L., & Cattell, R. B. (1966). Refinement and test of the theory of fluid and crystallized general intelligences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 57(5), 253–270. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0023816
Jouve, X. (2010a). Jouve Cerebrals Crystallized Educational Scale. Retrieved from https://www.cogn-iq.org/jouve-cerebrals-educational-scale.php
Jouve, X. (2010b). Investigating the Relationship Between JCCES and RIAS Verbal Scale: A Principal Component Analysis Approach. PsychoLogic. https://pubscience.org/ps-1mVDO-b1853c-14ty
Jouve, X. (2010c). Relationship between Jouve Cerebrals Crystallized Educational Scale (JCCES) Crystallized Educational Index (CEI) and Cognitive and Academic Measures. PsychoLogic. https://pubscience.org/ps-1mVDO-a9bcb4-zFIq
Naglieri, J. A., & Bardos, A. N. (1997). General Ability Measure for Adults (GAMA). Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.
Stevens, J. P. (2009). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (5th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
