An
acknowledged limitation of Carroll’s (1993, p. 579) three-stratum model was the fact that his
inferences regarding the relations between different factors at different levels (strata) emerged
from data derived from a diverse array of studies and samples. None of Carroll’s datasets
included the necessary breadth of variables to evaluate, in a single analysis, the general structure
of his proposed three-stratum model. The sample sizes of most studies reviewed by Carroll
were modest (median n = 198) and were limited in the breadth of variables analyzed (median
number of variables = 19.6) (Roberts, Pallier & Goff, 1999). Some domains were weakly
represented (e.g., Ga). According to Roberts et al. (1999), “no investigator has used
confirmatory factor-analytic techniques to determine whether there is empirical support for the
structure comprising the most salient aspects (i.e., Strata I and II) of Carroll’s (1993) model”
(p.
344).
This
past decade has witnessed a number of exploratory and/or confirmatory factor analysis
investigations that have included a wider range of CHC construct indicators. Collectively,these
studies provide an opportunity to evaluate and validate the broad strokes of the CHC model
(Figure 1e and Table 3). Other studies, although not specifically designed to evaluate the CHC
model, when viewed through a CHC lens provide additional support for major portions of the
CHC model. The factor analytic studies reviewed next were either: (1) designed as per the CHC
framework, (2) designed as per the Carroll and/or Cattell-Horn Gf-Gc models, and/or (3) were
non-CHC studies that are now interpreted here via a post-hoc CHC lens. Collectively, these
studies provide empirical support for the broad strokes of contemporary CHC theory.
1. 1. Introduction
