Fluid abilities (Gf) significantly predicted the rate of learning, whereas crystallized abilities (Gc) significantly predicted final learning performance in a one-week instructional process¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Gf had a significant negative effect on the slope (rate of learning) factor and a null effect on the intercept, while Gc had a significant positive effect on the intercept (final performance) and a null effect on the slope. → Angel Blanch 2015

Evidence¶

Angel Blanch 2015¶

Angel Blanch. (2015). Evaluating fluid and crystallized abilities in the performance of an educational process. Springer Verlag. http://hdl.handle.net/10459.1/48328

q2 · i? · associational · r1

Conditional latent curve model on the BURN11 dataset (101 high-school students, four achievement measures across a one-week instructional project). The article reports "a significant negative effect of Gf on the slope factor (–.23)" and "a positive significant effect on the intercept factor (.49)" for Gc; no standardized effect sizes were printed.

"Model A showed a significant negative effect of Gf on the slope factor (–.23) and a null effect on the intercept factor (.07), whereas Gc had a positive significant effect on the intercept factor (.49) although a null effect on the slope factor (–.06)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Final achievement level and rate of achievement change were positively correlated: students with higher final levels experienced smaller achievement decrements
• There was a significant indirect effect of Gf through Gc onto final learning performance, and the Gf→Gc→Learning model fit better than the reverse causal ordering — related
• A confirmatory factor analysis supported a two-factor Gf–Gc representation of the cognitive measures, with a significant .33 correlation between the factors — related