Mechanics of verbal ability

Abstract

Discusses the mechanics of verbal ability, based on published literature by the author and others. Individual cognitive competence depends on the knowledge an individual possesses and on his capacity for manipulating information, regardless of its meaning. Such capacities can be considered as mechanistic processes for thinking. Individual differences in such processes are a significant component of the capacities measured by verbal aptitude tests. Two types of processes underlying verbal performance are discussed: (a) those based on knowledge, which occur automatically; and (b) those that are conducted on the physical representation of a symbol but do not depend on the information associated with the symbol. These latter processes require attentional forces for their execution. Data from studies of the decoding process among such diverse groups as college-age students and nonstudents, epileptics undergoing drug therapy for severe seizures, Ss over 60 yrs old, elementary schoolers, and mildly mentally retarded children suggest that the 2 types of processes appear to bear different relations to inter- and intraindividual differences in verbal comprehension capacity. Although individual differences in the choice of strategy for task execution can affect the role of different mechanistic processes on performance, strategy choices themselves are predictable on the basis of S characteristics. (61 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

Full text

Psychological
Review
1978,
Vol.
85,
No. 2,
109-130
Mechanics
of
Verbal Ability
Earl
Hunt
University
of
Washington
Individual
cognitive
competence
depends
on the
knowledge
an
individual
pos-
sesses
and the
individual's
capacity
for
manipulating
information,
regardless
of
its
meaning.
We can
think
of
such
capacities
as
mechanistic
processes
for
think-
ing.
Individual
differences
in
mechanistic
processes
are a
significant
component
of
the
capacities
tested
by
verbal
aptitude
tests.
The
mechanistic
processes
themselves
must
be
subdivided
into
processes
that
occur
automatically
and
that
require
attentional
resources
for
their
execution.
Automated
and
controlled
pro-
cesses
apparently
bear
different
relations
to
inter-
and
intra-individual
differences
in
verbal
comprehension
capacity.
Individual
differences
in the
choice
of
strategy
for
task
execution
can
affect
the
role
of
different
mechanistic
processes
on
per-
formance.
On the
other
hand,
strategy
choices
themselves
are
predictable
on the
basis
of
subject
characteristics.
Language
is the
human
way to
communicate.
People
who
quickly grasp
the
meaning
of
state-
ments
are
universally admired. Philadelphia
lawyers
may be
less universally admired,
but
their ability
is
acknowledged. Verbal ability
is
not the
only facet
of
thought,
but it is one of
the
most important.
How
should
we
account
for
it?
In
this
article,
verbal
ability
will
refer
to
per-
formance
on a
standard, group-administered
verbal aptitude
test,
such
as the
Scholastic
Aptitude
Test,
Verbal Composite
(SAT-V)
or
the
verbal composite score
of the
Washington
Pre-College
Test
(WPCT-V).1
These
group-
administered interviews
can be
used
to
predict
a
variety
of
human performances, ranging
from
grade point average
to
measures
of
socio-
economic
success.
Table
1
presents some
rele-
This
research
was
supported
by
National Institute
of
Mental Health Grant MH-2179S
to the
University
of
Washington.
The
research
has
been
the
product
of a
team
effort
in
which
I
participated.
Colin
MacLeod
has
made
an
extensive
contribution
through
his
questions
both
on
this article
and
throughout
our
research
work.
I am
also
happy
to
acknowledge
the
major
contributions
of
Marcy
Lansman,
Clifford
Lunneborg,
and
Steven
Poltrock
both
to
this article
and to the
research program
it
reports.
Requests
for
reprints
should
be
sent
to
Earl Hunt,
Department
of
Psychology,
NI-2S,
University
of
Washington,
Seattle,
Washington
98195.
vant
data.
Of
course, there
is no
claim
that
the
tests
are
perfect predictors
of
such hetero-
geneous criteria.
On an
absolute level,
it is
surprising
not
only
that
scores
on a
paper-and-
pencil
group interview predict such
a
galli-
maufry
measure
as
college grade point average,
in
spite
of the
variety
of
courses taken
by
different
people,
but
that
no
other predictor
does
so
well. While there
is
legitimate debate
about
the
predictive power
of
specific
tests
in
specific
situations, there
is
little question about
the
general robustness
of
psychometric tests.
Many questions have been raised about
the
meaning
of
test scores. Verbal ability tests
are
typically composites
of
tasks
that
test knowl-
edge about
the
language,
for
example, syntax,
spelling,
vocabulary,
and the
ability
to
com-
prehend
brief
statements. Such
tasks
require
culture-specific
knowledge.
One
explanation
of
the
tests'
predictive power
is
simply
that
the
tests
indicate
the
sociocultural background
of
the
respondent
(Kamin,
1975).
On the
other
!The
Washington
Pre-College
Test (WPCT)
is a
group-administered
scholastic aptitude test taken each
year
by
high
school
juniors
in the
state
of
Washington
who
are
considering application
to
college.
From
a
psychometric
standpoint,
the
test
is
virtually
the
equivalent
of
the
nationally administered SAT. Unless
otherwise
noted,
the
operational
definition
of
verbal
ability
will
always
be a
person's WPCT
score
taken
during
the
junior
year examination.
Copyright
1978
by the
American
Psychological
Association,
Inc.
All
rights
of
reproduction
in any
form
reserved.
109