A New Lease of Life for Thomson's Bonds Model of Intelligence
A New Lease of Life for Thomson's Bonds Model of Intelligence
复制标题
DOI：
10.1037/a0016262
复制
发表时间：
2009-07-01
影响因子：
5.4
通讯作者：
Lawn, Martin
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bartholomew, David J.;Deary, Ian J.;Lawn, Martin
现代因素分析法是斯皮尔曼最初的智力“双因素”模型的产物。根据该方法，心理测试分数被认为是一般因素和特定因素的总和。早在1914年，戈弗雷汤姆森就意识到这些数据并不需要这样的解释，他通过提出后来被称为他的智力“纽带”模型来证明这一点。货车der Maas等人（2006年）最近注意到他们认为这两种模型都有困难，并提出了第三种模型。这两种选择都不需要作为斯皮尔曼思想核心的一般因素。虽然汤姆森的模型已经基本上被遗忘，但作者表明，它值得进一步考虑，因为它可以在统计学和生物学上与斯皮尔曼的模型平等竞争。特别是，他们表明，这是不可能区分统计两个模型。从汤姆森得出他的模型的方式以及随后斯皮尔曼和汤姆森之间的争论中也可以吸取教训。货车德尔马斯等人最近提出的建议在多大程度上可能比斯皮尔曼和汤姆森的模型有优势还不清楚，需要进一步研究。
Modern factor analysis is the outgrowth of Spearman's original "2-factor" model of intelligence. according to which a mental test score is regarded as the sum of a general factor and a specific factor. As early as 1914, Godfrey Thomson realized that the data did not require this interpretation and he demonstrated this by proposing what became known as his "bonds" model of intelligence. Van der Maas et al. (2006) have recently drawn attention to what they perceive as difficulties with both models and have proposed a 3rd model. Neither alternative requires the general factor that was at the core of Spearman's idea. Although Thomson's model has been largely forgotten, the authors show that it merits further consideration because it can compete, statistically and biologically, on equal terms with Spearman's model. In particular, they show that it is impossible to distinguish statistically between the 2 models. There are also lessons to be learnt from the way in which Thomson arrived at his model and from the subsequent debate between Spearman and Thomson. The extent to which the recent proposal by van der Maas et al. may offer any advantage over Spearman's and Thomson's models is unclear and requires further investigation.