Types of Intelligence: Scientific Models and Common Misconceptions
Author: Angela Bogdanova · Published: October 12, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Research cluster: Intelligence, Reasoning & Cognitive Abilities · Written by Artificial Sapiens
The phrase “types of intelligence” appears in psychology textbooks, classrooms, personality quizzes, and popular science. Yet the lists it introduces often refer to very different things. One list may describe statistically identifiable cognitive abilities, another may summarize ways of approaching problems, and another may name valuable human skills. Understanding the differences makes the topic more useful and the claims easier to evaluate.
The strongest evidence in intelligence research supports a hierarchical structure: cognitive test performances tend to correlate positively, and researchers can also identify broad abilities such as fluid reasoning, acquired knowledge, visual-spatial processing, and speed. The Cattell–Horn–Carroll (CHC) framework organizes this pattern. Gardner’s eight multiple intelligences and Sternberg’s analytical, creative, and practical intelligences are influential alternative classifications with more debated claims about independence and measurement. See Nisbett and colleagues’ review of intelligence and the modern discussion of intelligence models.
What is a type of intelligence?
In scientific psychology, intelligence concerns the ability to reason, learn, acquire and use knowledge, and adapt cognitive performance to problems. Researchers study individual differences by measuring performance on varied tasks, examining the relationships among results, and testing whether inferred abilities predict outcomes. An intelligence construct is inferred from patterns in measurements; it is not equivalent to any single correct answer, behavior, or test score.
A “type” can mean a broad cognitive ability, a narrow skill, a cognitive process, or a theoretically proposed way of functioning. Fluid reasoning is a broad psychometric ability. Mental rotation is a narrower visual-spatial task. Working memory is a system and set of processes involved in maintaining and manipulating information. Musical artistry involves abilities, learning, physical skill, creativity, and experience. These examples cross several explanatory levels.
This distinction matters because naming a category does not establish its scientific independence. Researchers need consistent operational definitions, reliable instruments, convergent and discriminant validity, replicated patterns, and evidence connecting a construct with relevant real-world outcomes. A label may describe something meaningful while remaining too broad, culturally dependent, or inconsistently measured to count as a separate cognitive factor.
General intelligence (g): why abilities are related
A longstanding empirical finding is the positive manifold: scores on different cognitive tasks generally tend to be positively associated. Someone who performs well on one form of reasoning is more likely, on average, to perform well on other cognitive tasks. Psychometric models often represent common variance using a general factor called g.
The g factor is a latent statistical construct inferred from multiple measures. It is not identical with a particular IQ score, a single brain location, or the whole of a person’s cognitive life. Different tests sample different abilities, and different statistical models may describe relationships among them. A person can show an overall level of cognitive performance together with pronounced relative strengths or weaknesses across areas.
Researchers debate why the positive manifold occurs. A common-factor explanation, mutual developmental influences among abilities, and overlapping information-processing mechanisms offer different interpretations. Factor analysis identifies patterns of covariance; it does not, by itself, settle the causal explanation. The review by Nisbett and colleagues and a psychometric network analysis of CHC measures demonstrate the distinction between established statistical regularities and competing theories of their origins.
CHC theory: the main scientific classification of cognitive abilities
CHC theory integrates important work associated with Raymond Cattell, John Horn, and John Carroll. Its familiar hierarchical presentation distinguishes a broad general level, several broad cognitive abilities, and narrower task-related abilities. The number and precise boundaries of broad factors have changed as researchers revised the model and tested additional domains. CHC provides a framework for interpreting a body of evidence, rather than a rigid inventory of human identities. See McGrew’s CHC review.
Fluid intelligence (Gf): reasoning about new problems
Fluid intelligence describes reasoning with relatively unfamiliar information, detecting regularities, making inferences, and solving problems for which a memorized response is insufficient. Tasks can include matrices, patterns, analogies, or rule discovery. For example, identifying the next figure in an unfamiliar sequence calls for detecting relationships among elements.
Fluid reasoning tasks still depend on attention, comprehension, prior experience with a test format, motivation, and sometimes speed. “Fluid” does not mean perfectly independent of knowledge. Improvement on a practiced matrix puzzle may reflect task learning rather than a change across the whole broad construct.
Crystallized intelligence (Gc): acquired comprehension and knowledge
Crystallized intelligence concerns organized knowledge developed through language, schooling, reading, social participation, work, and accumulated experience. Vocabulary understanding, factual knowledge, and sophisticated comprehension illustrate this broad domain. Knowledge influences reasoning: familiarity with concepts can make a difficult problem easier to understand and solve.
Fluid reasoning and crystallized knowledge are correlated and interact across development. Someone may perform especially well with familiar domain-specific concepts while encountering difficulty with novel abstract tasks; another person may show the reverse pattern. The Gf–Gc distinction describes average cognitive patterns, not permanent categories of “fluid people” and “crystallized people.” A historical review of fluid and crystallized intelligence traces the development of this distinction.
Visual-spatial processing (Gv)
Visual processing involves interpreting, representing, remembering, and transforming spatial or visual relationships. Mental rotation, paper folding, orientation, and some visualization tasks can provide indicators. An architect, mechanic, or student reading a diagram may draw on visual-spatial abilities, but real-world expertise adds knowledge, tools, practice, and domain-specific strategies.
Visual-spatial skill is also heterogeneous. Visualizing an object in three dimensions, finding a route, and interpreting a complex chart need overlapping yet partly different capacities. Neither one successful task nor one failure provides a complete Gv profile.
Auditory processing (Ga)
Auditory processing describes aspects of detecting and analyzing sound information, including distinctions and patterns relevant to many listening tasks. Such measures differ from hearing acuity and from the totality of musical performance. Understanding speech or music engages auditory analysis together with attention, learned knowledge, memory, and cultural experience.
Processing speed (Gs)
Processing speed concerns efficiency on specified mental operations, often measured using short, standardized timed tasks. Faster performance may help with some demands, but performance depends on accuracy, motor requirements, familiarity, fatigue, and task design. Processing speed is one cognitive domain among several; quick responses are not synonymous with deep reasoning, creativity, or wisdom.
Short-term memory, retrieval, and working-memory-related abilities
Remembering information briefly, manipulating it, and retrieving learned information contribute to cognition. CHC-style classifications distinguish short-term or working-memory-related performance from learning and long-term retrieval domains, with conventions varying by model revision. These measures intersect with reasoning but are not interchangeable with intelligence.
A meta-analysis by Ackerman, Beier, and Boyle found substantial but imperfect correlations between working memory and intelligence, supporting related yet distinguishable constructs. A process-oriented review explains why working memory, processing speed, and executive functions cannot individually be assumed to explain all cognitive differences.
Verbal, quantitative, literacy, and specialized knowledge
Comprehension–knowledge, quantitative knowledge, reading and writing, and domain-specific knowledge are represented in various versions of contemporary ability models. Verbal reasoning draws on language understanding, inference, and acquired concepts. Quantitative performance draws on numerical relationships and learned mathematical conventions. Specialized expertise may require years of sustained study.
The same activity can use several broad abilities. Solving a financial planning problem involves quantitative knowledge, working memory, verbal comprehension, and learned decision strategies. Describing these contributions is more informative than assigning the person a single “number intelligence” label.
Earlier psychometric theories and how CHC developed
Spearman’s general and specific factors
Charles Spearman introduced the influential distinction between general ability and task-specific components. The continuing importance of his work lies in the shared variance among different cognitive measures. Modern statistical methods allow more differentiated structures while retaining the central question of how general and specialized capacities relate.
Thurstone’s primary mental abilities
Louis Thurstone emphasized abilities such as verbal comprehension, numerical facility, spatial relations, word fluency, associative memory, perceptual speed, and reasoning. His work advanced the description of distinct cognitive domains. Later investigations of correlations among those domains motivated higher-order models, showing that an account can represent both broad commonality and specialized variation.
Cattell–Horn and Carroll
Cattell and Horn developed a family of broad cognitive abilities, prominently fluid and crystallized intelligence. Carroll synthesized large bodies of psychometric evidence into a three-stratum representation. Contemporary CHC approaches combine and revise these traditions, although researchers continue to debate exact factor definitions and the preferred role of a highest-level g factor.
Cognitive-process and network models
A factor taxonomy answers how test performances cluster. Cognitive-process research asks which operations contribute to performance and why individuals differ. Network and developmental approaches investigate how learning, knowledge, cognitive strategies, and reciprocal influences can generate correlations over time. These perspectives are active theoretical research programs; their proposed causal mechanisms require testing beyond simply fitting a factor model.
Gardner’s multiple intelligences: eight popular categories
Howard Gardner’s multiple intelligences theory proposed that human competence involves several relatively autonomous forms of intelligence. The eight most widely cited are linguistic, logical–mathematical, spatial, musical, bodily–kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalistic. Gardner’s approach broadened educational discussion beyond conventional academic tasks and drew attention to diverse human competencies.
Linguistic intelligence describes skill with language and meaning. Logical–mathematical intelligence concerns rules, logical relations, and numbers. Spatial intelligence concerns visualizing and transforming spatial information. Musical intelligence concerns sensitivity to musical structure and expression. Bodily–kinesthetic intelligence describes coordinated and skilled movement. Interpersonal intelligence concerns understanding and interacting with other people. Intrapersonal intelligence concerns understanding one’s own experience. Naturalistic intelligence concerns recognizing and organizing patterns in the natural world. Gardner has also considered existential concerns as a possible additional domain; the standard popular list remains eight.
This list names recognizable kinds of human performance. Its central scientific question is whether these are independent intelligences that can be operationally measured and validated in the way psychometric factors are. Gardner’s model does not provide the same degree of replicated evidence for eight autonomous factors that hierarchical models provide for common and broad cognitive abilities.
In an empirical test of Gardner-inspired tasks, Visser, Ashton, and Vernon found a substantial general factor across several cognitive domains, with weaker residual associations within some proposed domains. That study does not reduce every artistic or interpersonal competence to g. It challenges the stronger claim that the proposed categories form independent intelligences as originally characterized.
Waterhouse’s 2023 analysis reviewed problems involving measurement, empirical independence, classroom interpretations, and assumed brain modularity. That publication is a critical conceptual analysis, and its arguments should be recognized as such. Taken together, the evidence justifies describing Gardner’s theory as influential and scientifically contested, while rejecting confident claims that eight independent neural or psychometric intelligences have been established.
Multiple intelligences and the learning-styles misconception
Theories of intelligence and theories of learning styles answer different questions. A child may be skilled at music or drawing; that observation does not show that all other subjects must be taught through music or drawing. The “matching” hypothesis predicts better learning when instruction corresponds to a measured student type, and therefore requires controlled educational evidence.
A major review by Pashler and colleagues found inadequate evidence for using learning-style assessments to determine general instructional practice. Teaching can nevertheless use diverse examples, diagrams, conversation, feedback, practice, and accessible alternatives when these methods suit the concept and learner. Effective choices are justified by demonstrated learning, accessibility, and task requirements, rather than by assigning a permanent intelligence label.
Sternberg’s triarchic model: analytical, creative, and practical
Robert Sternberg proposed a triarchic account organized around analytical, creative, and practical intelligence. Analytical intelligence concerns examining information, comparing alternatives, evaluating evidence, and solving structured problems. Creative intelligence concerns dealing with novelty and developing useful original approaches. Practical intelligence concerns adapting to actual situations, applying knowledge, and responding to contextual constraints.
Imagine planning an emergency community food service. Analytical work includes calculating resources and evaluating options. Creative work includes designing a new distribution approach. Practical work includes navigating local conditions and coordinating implementation. The three descriptions highlight genuine aspects of successful behavior. The empirical question is whether separately measured abilities account for outcomes independently of general reasoning, experience, motivation, personality, and opportunity.
Research has disputed strong claims of independent triarchic factors. A reanalysis of the Sternberg Triarchic Abilities Test00087-3) interpreted much of its pattern through g, and a later factor-analytic test likewise found support for a general-factor account in its sample. Sternberg’s theory remains a useful conceptual approach to adaptive performance, while the three categories should not be described as conclusively independent cognitive systems.
Emotional intelligence: why the measurement model matters
Emotional intelligence, or EI, is a prominent example of how the same label can denote several constructs. Ability EI concerns performance in perceiving, understanding, and reasoning about emotion-related information. Self-report or trait EI usually concerns a person’s perceptions of their characteristic emotional functioning. Mixed EI models combine emotional attributes with wider personal tendencies, skills, or motivation.
These different forms should not be pooled as though they measured identical abilities. Joseph and Newman’s integrative meta-analysis examined overlap with established cognitive ability and personality variables. A meta-analysis of academic performance found positive EI–achievement associations, with estimates differing across ability, self-report, and mixed approaches. The latter is an association across studies and does not imply that increasing an EI questionnaire score necessarily causes an equivalent improvement in grades.
Social and interpersonal intelligence research examines capacities for understanding social situations and people. A meta-analysis by Bryan and Mayer, involving 87 studies, supported a distinction between people-centered and thing-centered domains. That evidence provides a foundation for continued investigation of social-emotional abilities, while precise boundaries, assessment methods, and incremental predictions must be tested construct by construct.
Creativity, street smarts, and other proposed “intelligences”
Creativity is commonly defined in terms of ideas or outcomes that are both original and appropriate to a context. It involves knowledge, cognitive processes, persistence, motivation, and particular domains of practice. Describing creativity as an intelligence can highlight its role in adaptive thought, but the phrase itself does not establish a new independent factor.
Practical or everyday intelligence may describe tacit knowledge, situational judgment, and learned strategies for handling everyday problems. These capacities can matter greatly. Their independence from general cognitive ability is a distinct psychometric question. A critical review of practical-intelligence claims00085-5) disputed strong claims of separation from g and equivalent predictive power.
Cultural intelligence, financial intelligence, digital intelligence, ecological intelligence, and other public labels may identify valuable literacies or specialized research questions. Some have defined measures, whereas others operate as broad metaphors or educational categories. A scientific evaluation asks what is measured, whether the construct is reliable, whether it differs from established variables, and whether it predicts a relevant outcome.
The word “intelligence” also appears in artificial intelligence, where it is applied to the capacities of engineered systems. Questions about artificial cognitive agency and the place of human intelligence in the Artificial Era belong to a different conceptual inquiry. The English Hub article on intelligence in the Artificial Era explores that context.
How scientists determine whether an intelligence type is real
A new intelligence model becomes scientifically persuasive through a chain of evidence. The proposed ability must have an explicit definition. Measurements need reliability and validity evidence. Multiple tasks should converge on the proposed ability without simply reproducing the content of one test. Independent studies should replicate the factor structure. Competing models should be compared directly.
A claim of a separate intelligence also needs discriminant validity. If the proposed measure overlaps with g, personality, acquired knowledge, or opportunity, a study must account for that overlap. Predictive utility is strongest when the measure adds information about a relevant outcome beyond established predictors, using appropriate designs and external validation. Correlation alone cannot establish that one ability caused an observed achievement.
Factor analysis can describe correlations through general factors, broad factors, or alternative structures. It does not directly demonstrate that each factor is a separate neural module, a permanent category of people, or a causal mechanism. Network theories and process-based models offer additional explanations of observed patterns. Scientific progress depends on evaluating predictions, not on counting labels in an attractive diagram.
Fairness and measurement across populations
An intelligence assessment depends on language, instructions, task familiarity, measurement conditions, and the intended population. Validity and fairness require considering which comparisons are supported by evidence. Researchers use measurement-invariance and related analyses to evaluate whether constructs behave comparably across relevant contexts.
The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, jointly developed by the American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education, provide authoritative guidance. An individual score or observed group association must be interpreted with respect to the specific test, sampling, uncertainty, circumstances, and intended use. Group averages cannot determine any particular person’s capacities.
Is IQ the same as intelligence?
IQ is a standardized score from an intelligence assessment, often placed on a scale with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. Intelligence and its component abilities are theoretical constructs. The observed score is an estimate influenced by which tasks were selected, how the test was standardized, measurement error, testing conditions, and the normative population.
A comprehensive battery may report broader and narrower indexes, yet a profile does not identify someone's unique “intelligence species.” Clinicians and qualified examiners consider confidence intervals, the representativeness of norms, cultural and linguistic context, task demands, and the purpose for which an assessment is used. A brief online intelligence-type quiz rarely provides an equivalent evidence base.
Measured ability can predict certain outcomes probabilistically, including aspects of academic performance. Achievement additionally reflects teaching, learning conditions, opportunities, interest, sustained practice, health, and domain-specific knowledge. IQ or an apparent strength in a particular domain cannot serve as a complete judgment of an individual's identity, worth, or future.
Do intelligence types change with learning, development, and age?
Cognitive performance reflects interacting influences across development. Genetic variation, educational experiences, material resources, health, and social environments are relevant to population-level variation. A heritability estimate describes variation within a particular studied population and context; it does not describe the fixed portion of one individual's intelligence. The Nisbett and colleagues review summarizes why environment and development matter.
Fluid reasoning, speed, and acquired knowledge can show different average trajectories with age, and individuals vary widely. A single cross-sectional pattern does not describe every person's development. Opportunities to learn and maintain domain-specific knowledge remain consequential.
Education can affect measured cognitive ability. A meta-analysis by Ritchie and Tucker-Drob examined quasiexperimental evidence and reported gains of approximately one to five IQ points associated with an additional year of education in the studies analyzed. This estimate is an aggregate research result, not a guaranteed increase for every individual or a direct conversion from schooling to latent g.
Cognitive training and the problem of transfer
Improvement on a trained game, puzzle, or exercise demonstrates performance change in that setting. Near transfer is improvement on similar untrained tasks; far transfer concerns meaningfully different cognitive abilities or real-world outcomes. Carefully chosen comparison groups are needed to distinguish transfer from repeated testing, expectancy effects, and other influences.
A meta-analysis by Melby-Lervåg, Redick, and Hulme found improvement in trained or similar working-memory performance without convincing evidence of broad far-transfer gains in intelligence or academic skills in stronger comparisons. The practical lesson is to specify the skill, outcome, population, and duration of improvement before claiming that a program increases general intelligence.
Does each type of intelligence occupy a separate brain region?
Neural systems contribute to reasoning, memory, perception, language, and skilled action through interacting processes. Evidence of functional specialization does not imply that every theoretical intelligence category maps onto one self-contained brain module. A psychological factor is inferred from behavioral measurements; demonstrating its neural implementation requires separate neuroscience evidence.
The popular claim that Gardner’s eight intelligences each have a dedicated neural location is not established. Waterhouse’s analysis examines the independence and brain-modularity claims. Any neural account also needs to distinguish correlation, task activation, development, and causal necessity.
Common misconceptions about types of intelligence
“There are exactly eight scientifically established intelligences.”
Eight is the conventional count associated with Gardner’s theory. Hierarchical psychometric models organize general, broad, and narrow abilities using other classifications. The eight-domain model has not achieved equivalent validation as eight independent cognitive factors.
“Everyone has one dominant intelligence type.”
An individual may display relative strengths in different tasks, but a cognitive profile is not necessarily a fixed category of person. Profiles depend on measures and context and can change with learning. Scientific evidence supports describing measured strengths rather than assigning an exclusive intelligence identity.
“A high IQ means equal excellence across all abilities.”
General ability and specific abilities coexist. A person may have relatively stronger vocabulary, spatial skills, speed, or specialized knowledge. A single aggregate score provides limited information about those differences.
“Emotional intelligence is a proven replacement for IQ.”
Emotional-intelligence research includes multiple measures that overlap differently with cognitive ability and personality. EI can predict outcomes in some studies, but no evidence establishes it as a universal substitute for measured general ability across every context.
“Matching lessons to an intelligence type guarantees better learning.”
The required instructional interaction is not established by identifying varied human talents. An evidence review of learning styles found an inadequate scientific basis for routine type-matched teaching. Effective teaching depends on subject matter, accessibility, feedback, and demonstrated outcomes.
“Brain training always produces higher general intelligence.”
Training reliably can produce specific practice gains. Broad improvement requires direct tests of transfer. The evidence does not support treating improvement in one cognitive game as proof of improvement across the full intelligence hierarchy.
“Types of intelligence are medical or clinical diagnoses.”
Intelligence constructs and test scores describe aspects of cognitive performance. They do not independently establish ADHD, autism, intellectual disability, dementia, or another clinical condition. Appropriate clinical interpretation uses condition-specific criteria and comprehensive assessment.
Using intelligence research in education and everyday life
For an individual learner, the productive question is which abilities, knowledge, and strategies a particular goal requires. Spatial visualization can be practiced in spatial tasks. Vocabulary grows through meaningful exposure and learning. Mathematical fluency benefits from appropriate instruction and retrieval. Social skill can develop through feedback and situated experience. Claims about general transfer need their own evidence.
For educators, a varied instructional repertoire can make material accessible and connect concepts across formats. Instructional effectiveness should be evaluated by demonstrated knowledge and skills rather than by an assumed permanent type. For professionals using tests, assessment should follow validated interpretations and fair procedures. The professional testing standards establish this broader responsibility.
For readers evaluating claims online, ask four questions: What exactly is the proposed ability? How was it measured? What independent evidence shows it differs from established constructs? What outcomes does it predict, and under which conditions? These questions separate scientifically useful categories from attractive but untested classifications.
Frequently asked questions
How many types of intelligence are there in psychology?
There is no single number shared by all models. Gardner proposes eight widely taught intelligences, Sternberg emphasizes three components, and CHC models organize a general factor together with multiple broad and narrow cognitive abilities. The answer depends on which kind of classification is being used.
What are the main scientifically supported broad cognitive abilities?
Research supports general ability and several broad domains such as fluid reasoning, comprehension–knowledge, visual processing, auditory processing, processing speed, and memory-related performance. Some CHC versions include further quantitative, literacy, and specialized knowledge domains. Precise inventories vary by revision and assessment.
What is the difference between fluid and crystallized intelligence?
Fluid intelligence emphasizes solving relatively unfamiliar problems; crystallized intelligence emphasizes knowledge acquired through experience and education. They are distinguishable but related abilities, and complex tasks commonly recruit both.
Is Gardner’s multiple intelligences theory scientifically proven?
Gardner’s framework is influential, but its core claim that the eight domains function as independent psychometric intelligences lacks strong replication and measurement support. Its educational appeal should be distinguished from evidence that matching teaching to a proposed type improves learning.
What are Sternberg’s three types of intelligence?
Analytical intelligence involves examining and evaluating problems; creative intelligence concerns generating useful novel approaches; and practical intelligence concerns adaptive performance in everyday settings. The independence and incremental predictive value of these components remain debated.
Is emotional intelligence a genuine ability?
Ability-based EI is a research construct assessed through emotion-related performance tasks. Trait and mixed EI measures capture partly different attributes. Research finds relationships with some outcomes, but each claim depends on which measure and definition is used.
Are working memory, executive function, and intelligence the same?
They are related constructs studied at different explanatory levels. Working memory concerns temporary maintenance and manipulation of information; executive processes support goal-directed regulation; intelligence models concern patterned variation across cognitive performances. Correlations do not make the constructs identical.
Can a person be highly creative or socially skilled without exceptional IQ test performance?
Yes. Creativity and social effectiveness depend on multiple qualities, acquired knowledge, opportunities, interests, and situational conditions. Such observations do not independently prove the existence of separate general creative or practical intelligence factors.
Can intelligence improve with education?
Quasiexperimental evidence indicates that additional education can improve measured cognitive performance on average. Effects vary across contexts and measures. It is important to distinguish observed score change, learning of specific material, and claims about latent general ability.
Can people discover their intelligence type with an online quiz?
Online quizzes may prompt reflection on interests or perceived strengths, but most do not provide evidence for reliable classification into independent intelligence types. Validated professional assessments have explicit norms, reliability studies, interpretive limits, and designated uses.
Do intelligence types predict career success or learning potential?
Different measured abilities can contribute useful predictive information for particular outcomes. Individual achievements also depend on instruction, experience, context, opportunity, motivation, and specialized skill. No single category provides a complete account of potential or future success.
Related Articles
References
Ackerman, P. L., Beier, M. E., & Boyle, M. O. (2005). Working memory and intelligence: The same or different constructs? Psychological Bulletin, 131(1), 30–60. DOI.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Official standards.
Brody, N. (2003). Construct validation of the Sternberg Triarchic Abilities Test: Comment and reanalysis. Intelligence, 31(4), 319–329. DOI00087-3).
Brown, R. E. (2016). Hebb and Cattell: The genesis of the theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10, 606. DOI
Bryan, V. M., & Mayer, J. D. (2021). Are people-centered intelligences psychometrically distinct from thing-centered intelligences? A meta-analysis. Journal of Intelligence, 9(4), 48. DOI.
Chooi, W.-T., Long, H. E., & Thompson, L. A. (2014). The Sternberg Triarchic Abilities Test (Level-H) is a measure of g. Journal of Intelligence, 2(3), 56–67. DOI
Frischkorn, G. T., Schubert, A.-L., & Hagemann, D. (2019). Processing speed, working memory, and executive functions: Independent or inter-related predictors of general intelligence. Intelligence, 75, 95–110. DOI.
Frischkorn, G. T., Wilhelm, O., & Oberauer, K. (2022). Process-oriented intelligence research: A review from the cognitive perspective. Intelligence, 94, 101681. DOI
Gignac, G. E., & Szodorai, E. T. (2024). Defining intelligence: Bridging the gap between human and artificial perspectives. Intelligence, 104, 101832. DOI
Gottfredson, L. S. (2003). Dissecting practical intelligence theory: Its claims and evidence. Intelligence, 31(4), 343–397. DOI00085-5).
Joseph, D. L., & Newman, D. A. (2010). Emotional intelligence: An integrative meta-analysis and cascading model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 54–78. DOI.
MacCann, C., Jiang, Y., Brown, L. E. R., Double, K. S., Bucich, M., & Minbashian, A. (2020). Emotional intelligence predicts academic performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 146(2), 150–186. DOI.
McGrew, K. S. (2009). CHC theory and the human cognitive abilities project: Standing on the shoulders of the giants of psychometric intelligence research. Intelligence, 37(1), 1–10. DOI.
McGrew, K. S., Schneider, W. J., Decker, S. L., & Bulut, O. (2023). A psychometric network analysis of CHC intelligence measures: Implications for research, theory, and interpretation of broad CHC scores beyond g. Journal of Intelligence, 11(1), 19. DOI
Melby-Lervåg, M., Redick, T. S., & Hulme, C. (2016). Working memory training does not improve performance on measures of intelligence or other measures of far transfer: Evidence from a meta-analytic review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(4), 512–534. DOI.
Nisbett, R. E., Aronson, J., Blair, C., Dickens, W., Flynn, J., Halpern, D. F., & Turkheimer, E. (2012). Intelligence: New findings and theoretical developments. American Psychologist, 67(2), 130–159. DOI.
Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105–119. DOI.
Ritchie, S. J., & Tucker-Drob, E. M. (2018). How much does education improve intelligence? A meta-analysis. Psychological Science, 29(8), 1358–1369. DOI.
Visser, B. A., Ashton, M. C., & Vernon, P. A. (2006). Beyond g: Putting multiple intelligences theory to the test. Intelligence, 34(5), 487–502. DOI.
Waterhouse, L. (2023). Why multiple intelligences theory is a neuromyth. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1217288. DOI.