Similarities: The individual is presented with two words and asked how they are alike, for example, they may be asked how a peach and an apple are alike. The test is designed to assess verbal reasoning and the development of concepts.
I predict a weak association with cranial volume, dolicocephaly, and parietal development.
Vocabulary: The individual is presented with words and is asked to define them. The test was developed to measure word knowledge and verbal concept formation.
I predict a weak association with cranial volume and cranial height.
Comprehension: The individual is asked questions about social and other situations, such as: Why should children not be allowed to work in factories? The test was developed to measure an individual’s ability to understand complex questions and formulate answers.
I predict a weak association with dolicocephalism and occipital development.
Information: The individual is given a series of general knowledge questions, such as: How far is it from London to Paris? The test was developed to measure an individual’s ability to acquire, retain and retrieve information.
I predict a weak association with skull width.
Word Reasoning: The individual is given a series of clues and has to say what the common concept is. The test was developed to measure verbal reasoning.
I predict a weak relationship with frontal development, parietal development, and cranial volume.
Block Design: The individual is required to copy a pattern using coloured blocks. The item: is designed to assess an individual’s ability to understand complex visual information.
I predict a medium relationship with deep sockets and occipital prominence.
(Also, “prominence” is a good word for “development relative to other features”. Would be good to assign plainstyle words like this to Edenist phrenological analysis.
Picture Concepts: The individual is shown either two or three rows of pictures and has to choose one picture from each row that share a common characteristic. The test was developed to assess a child’s ability to categorise items.
Predict medium association with fauxcippital prominence and weak association cranial width.
Matrix Reasoning: The individual is presented with a matrix of abstract pictures in which there is one picture missing. She/he has then to choose which of a number of possible options the missing picture is. The test was developed non-verbal problem solving.
Predict weak association with frontal prominence (due to retesting sensitivity), cranial volume, and dolicocephaly. You know what, make those medium associations.
Picture Completion: The individual is shown a picture in which there is a significant part missing, such as a man cutting down a tree using an axe without a head, and is required to say what is missing. The test was developed to measure visual understanding and organisation.
I predict a weak association with cranial volume, frontal prominence, and occipital prominence. In effect, it’s measuring the ability to detect visual silliness. Probably correlates with interest in comics.
Digit Span: There are two parts to this subtest. In the first part (digits forward) the individual is read a series of numbers and is required to say them back to the examiner. In the second part (digits reversed) he/she is again read a series of numbers but this time she/he is required to say them back to the examiner in reverse order. The test was developed to measure verbal short-term memory, and attention.
I predict weak associations with frontal prominence, parietal prominence, and dolicocephaly. Probably a weak negative correlation with socket depth.
Letter-Number Sequencing: The child is read a series of letters and numbers and is required to repeat them back with the letters in alphabetical order and the numbers in numerical order. The test was designed to measure an individual’s ability to hold verbal information in memory while he/she manipulates it.
Same as previous.
Arithmetic: This consists of a series of mental arithmetic questions such as: If Jo has 12 buns, he then eats 3 and gives 4 away how many does he have left? The test was designed to measure a number of mental tasks including the ability to hold information in memory while it is being manipulated.
I predict a medium association with frontal prominence and cranial volume.
Coding: The individual is presented with a key in which the numbers 1 to 9 are each paired with a different symbol; his/her task is then to use this key to put in the appropriate symbols for a list of numbers between 1 and 9. The test was designed to measure speed of processing but also is affected by other cognitive abilities such as learning, short-term memory and concentration.
I predict medium associations with neoteny, cranial volume, dolicocephaly, and encephalization quotient.
Symbol Search: The individual has to look at two target symbols and then examine a group of symbols to see if the target symbols are repeated. The test is designed to measure processing speed but is also affected by other cognitive abilities such as visualmotor coordination and concentration.
I predict medium associations with cranial volume, parietal prominence, and fauxcippital prominence, and a weak association with occipital prominence.
Cancellation: The child looks at a random sequence of pictures and is required to cross out target pictures. In addition to processing speed it is probably affected by other factors such as attention, and visual neglect.
I predict a weak association with cranial volume and deep sockets and weak negative associations with cranial width and frontal prominence.
Visual Puzzles: The individual is shown a pattern and has to choose three possible parts to make up that pattern. The subtest was developed to measure non-verbal reasoning and the ability to understand abstract visual information.
I predict a medium association with cranial volume and fauxcippital prominence and a weak association with occipital prominence.
Figure Weights: The individual is presented with a picture of a pair of scales in which there are missing weights, and they have to choose the correct weights to keep the scales in balance. The subset is designed to measure quantitative and analogical reasoning.
This one is particularly interesting because I’m unusually talented at it. When I saw a “medium-hard” example in Ian Deary’s book I couldn’t believe it.
Not only is it straightforward, but I was able to derive the general solution as a system of linear equations in my head in about 30 seconds.
Considering this was the first time I’d ever seen such a test item, I’d consider this a sign that I’m very comfortable with this sort of problem. Therefore I’d predict a strong association with Asperger’s, and a medium association with deep sockets, parietal prominence, and cranial volume. Maybe a weak association with frontal prominence too. Possibly cranial width. This may be the one subtest where associative horizon is helpful. (Controlling for retest learning effects, which I’d bet are pretty strong.)
Make your predictions in the comments below, and don’t forget to like and subscribe!