1 Citation   Views   Downloads

Within-person structures of daily cognitive performance cannot be inferred from between-person structures of cognitive abilities

View preprint
RT @rogierK: @SolomonKurz @Nate__Haines Did you see this paper? It’s fascinating https://t.co/pcGXT98gPH
RT @janne_adolf: @GolinoHudson @EikoFried @leb112358 I think this work might be quite related: https://t.co/IUPJxcnZNY There the Kullback-L…
@GolinoHudson @EikoFried @leb112358 I think this work might be quite related: https://t.co/IUPJxcnZNY There the Kullback-Leibler divergence is used to compare WP and BP distributions.
A much needed reference for all those working on cognition questions related to the within vs. between discourse. Also: we need more discussion sections like this in psych science!
101 days ago
@SilverVVulpes @PoleInCad g as a construct (redefined by Jensen unlike Spearman s original falsifiable concept of intelligence) is an artifact/a tautology, i don t think one needs neuroimaging to confirm that. You only need multiple phenotyping and standard psychometrics. https://t.co/6YHegMOp6V
211 days ago
@BenWinegard @JamesLingford @sillyolyou @rasmansa @CathrynTownsend @LTF_01 @jonatanpallesen Daily cognitive performances do not look like what are predicted by theories in BG and so called intelligence research. https://t.co/6YHegMOp6V https://t.co/psyOhMJMgQ
RT @rogierK: @SolomonKurz @Nate__Haines Did you see this paper? It’s fascinating https://t.co/pcGXT98gPH
RT @rogierK: @SolomonKurz @Nate__Haines Did you see this paper? It’s fascinating https://t.co/pcGXT98gPH
305 days ago
@SolomonKurz @Nate__Haines Did you see this paper? It’s fascinating https://t.co/pcGXT98gPH
353 days ago
@PrDemography @WiringTheBrain @nntaleb @PrometheusAM @SGM63 @RobertPlomin Intelligence research is just built on repetitive numbers whose scientific value is unknown. The assumptions of ergodicity are shown to break down when tested. Basically day to day congnitive performance cannot be explained by the litterature. https://t.co/6YHegMOp6V https://t.co/zmtwFCJon7
382 days ago
RT @rogierK: This is such fascinating & important work (by @MartinLovden & others): within-subject fluctuations across cognitive tests acro…
382 days ago
Within-person cognitive structures https://t.co/meVWigS5rf via @PeerJPreprints
RT @rogierK: This is such fascinating & important work (by @MartinLovden & others): within-subject fluctuations across cognitive tests acro…
RT @rogierK: This is such fascinating & important work (by @MartinLovden & others): within-subject fluctuations across cognitive tests acro…
388 days ago
@marliekevk @yana_fandakova It is, but only because people have barely studied true fluctuations in IQ (exception below). People will have a *mean* trait IQ, but non-negligible, and non-unidimensional variation around that mean. Tablets/phones are going to transform this field imo https://t.co/pcGXT98gPH
RT @rogierK: This is such fascinating & important work (by @MartinLovden & others): within-subject fluctuations across cognitive tests acro…
RT @PassionResearch: Interesting new study on the differences in within-person and between-person structure of cognitive ability. "Within-p…
RT @rogierK: This is such fascinating & important work (by @MartinLovden & others): within-subject fluctuations across cognitive tests acro…
459 days ago
RT @rogierK: This is such fascinating & important work (by @MartinLovden & others): within-subject fluctuations across cognitive tests acro…
Within-person structures of daily cognitive performance cannot be inferred from between-person structures of cognitive abilities https://t.co/tGPawPvDOb
RT @rogierK: This is such fascinating & important work (by @MartinLovden & others): within-subject fluctuations across cognitive tests acro…
RT @rogierK: This is such fascinating & important work (by @MartinLovden & others): within-subject fluctuations across cognitive tests acro…
RT @rogierK: This is such fascinating & important work (by @MartinLovden & others): within-subject fluctuations across cognitive tests acro…
RT @PassionResearch: Interesting new study on the differences in within-person and between-person structure of cognitive ability. "Within-p…
RT @rogierK: This is such fascinating & important work (by @MartinLovden & others): within-subject fluctuations across cognitive tests acro…
NOT PEER-REVIEWED
"PeerJ Preprints" is a venue for early communication or feedback before peer review. Data may be preliminary.

Supplemental Information

Figure 1

Quantile-quantile probability plots indicating normality of the distributions of Dimensions 1 and 2 for the multidimensional scaling (MDS) solution of within-person correlation matrices based on raw (A) and de-trended data (B), as well as between-person correlation matrices at pretest (C) and posttest (D).

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.27576v1/supp-1

Additional Information

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Author Contributions

Florian Schmiedek conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

Martin Lövdén conceived and designed the experiments, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

Timo von Oertzen analyzed the data, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

Ulman Lindenberger conceived and designed the experiments, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

Human Ethics

The following information was supplied relating to ethical approvals (i.e., approving body and any reference numbers):

Ethical review board of the Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin

Data Deposition

The following information was supplied regarding data availability:

For reasons of privacy, the present data can only be shared with research institutions that meet the data protection requirements prescribed by European and German law. We have set up a data sharing procedure, and invite interested researchers to request the data for reanalyses from the authors. See https://www.mpib-berlin.mpg.de/en/research/lifespan-psychology/projects/intra-person-dynamics-across-the-lifespan/cogito

Funding

The COGITO Study was supported by the Max Planck Society, including a grant from the Innovation Fund of the Max Planck Society (M.FE.A.BILD0005); the Sofja Kovalevskaja Award of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation (to M. L.) donated by the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF); the German Research Foundation (DFG; KFG 163); and the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF; CAI). U. L. was supported by the DFG’s Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Award. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.


Add your feedback

Before adding feedback, consider if it can be asked as a question instead, and if so then use the Question tab. Pointing out typos is fine, but authors are encouraged to accept only substantially helpful feedback.

Some Markdown syntax is allowed: _italic_ **bold** ^superscript^ ~subscript~ %%blockquote%% [link text](link URL)
 
By posting this you agree to PeerJ's commenting policies