Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Intelligence
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: This study provides the first direct evidence of cognitive continuity for multiple specific
Received 20 February 2012 information processing abilities from infancy and toddlerhood to pre-adolescence, and provides
Received in revised form 24 May 2012 support for the view that infant abilities form the basis of later childhood abilities. Data from a large
Accepted 24 May 2012 sample of children (N = 131) were obtained at five different time points (7, 12, 24, 36 months, and
Available online 20 July 2012
11 years) for a large battery of tasks representing four cognitive domains (attention, processing
speed, memory, and representational competence). Structural equation models of continuity were
Keywords: assessed for each domain, in which it was assumed that infant abilities→toddler abilities→11-year
Infancy abilities. Abilities at each age were represented by latent variables, which minimize task-specific
Toddlerhood
variance and measurement error. The model for each domain fit the data. Moreover, abilities
Pre-adolescence
from the three age periods predicted global outcome, with infant, toddler, and contempo-
Cognitive continuity
Information processing raneous 11-year measures, respectively, accounting for 12.3%, 18.5%, and 45.2% of the
IQ variance in 11-year IQ. These findings strengthen contentions that specific cognitive abilities
that can be identified in infancy show long-term continuity and contribute importantly to
later cognitive competence.
© 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
0160-2896/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.intell.2012.05.007
446 S.A. Rose et al. / Intelligence 40 (2012) 445–457
which infant abilities form the building blocks of the more tasks where the subject must identify targets presented along
global aspects of later cognitive ability. These issues are with a number of distracters (selective attention).
addressed in the present study by examining longitudinal
relations from infancy and toddlerhood to 11 years within four 2.2. Sparse literature
domains – attention, processing speed, memory, and repre-
sentational competence – and the relation of infant and toddler While there have been a number of studies relating infant
abilities from these domains to 11 year IQ. attention and memory to later global indices of cognition,
with infant measures predicting IQ even as much as 18 and
2. Background 21 years later (Fagan, Holland, & Wheeler, 2007; Sigman,
Cohen, & Beckwith, 1997; for a review see Fagan, 2011), only
2.1. Disparity in task demands a handful have examined continuities in specific information
processes or followed children beyond the preschool or early
The issue of cognitive continuity from infancy to later years school years. Continuity of attention was found in one study,
is bedeviled by two problems. First, it has long been thought where preterm neonates who displayed relatively short
that the cognitive processes in infancy were fundamentally fixations to a checkerboard pattern (indicative of efficient
different from those characterizing mature cognition. And processing) showed better selective attention at 12 years
indeed, there is empirical data showing that scores obtained (Sigman, Cohen, Beckwith, Asarnow, & Parmelee, 1991). While
during the first year of life on traditional infant tests, such as the sample was restricted to preterms, and the findings were
the Bayley Scales of Infant Development, do not predict later not consistent across measures, the results are encouraging.
cognition (Bayley, 1958). Second, even for specific abilities that Continuity in processing speed was found in another study,
do exist in infancy, the disparities in task demands across the where measures of ocular RT from Haith's visual expectation
ages might obscure any underlying continuities. Very different paradigm at 3.5 months were found to correlate significantly
methods, task content, and instructions are used to assess with ocular RT at 4.5 years (although not with manual RT;
cognition in infants and in older children. For example, infant Dougherty & Haith, 1997). While the sample was small
measures are totally non-verbal and rely principally on (N = 23) and the follow-up period limited, here too the results
preferential looking, look duration, and imitation; ‘instructions’ are encouraging, particularly considering the centrality of
per se are non-existent, and knowledge of competence is processing speed to individual differences in other aspects
inferred from the behaviors observed. By contrast, at older of cognition (Anderson, 2001). And finally, continuities in
ages, tasks utilize precise instructions that directly indicate memory have been found, with infant novelty scores from the
what is expected, and responses typically have a verbal paired-comparison task relating to more standard assessments
component, factors which help to disambiguate task require- of memory at 3, 6 and 11 years (Bauer, 2006; Fagan, 2011;
ments and encourage the formulation and implementation Rose & Feldman, 1997; Rose, Feldman, & Wallace, 1992;
of strategic approaches, such as grouping, rehearsal, or Thompson, Detterman, & Plomin, 1991). While the sample
refreshing. sizes were somewhat larger in these memory studies, only two
Visual recognition memory provides a typical example of cohorts were involved. In general, studies of infant-adolescent
the age-related disparities that exist between infant and continuities are not only rare, but constructs tend to be
adult tasks designed to assess the same ability. In infancy, operationalized by a single measure, and statistical procedures
visual recognition memory is generally assessed with the that minimize error variance, such as structural equation
paired-comparison paradigm, where a target is presented for modeling (SEM) have not been used.
familiarization and then the familiar target and a new one are
paired on test; recognition is inferred from preferential 2.3. Present study
looking to the new target (Fagan, 1970; Rose, Feldman, &
Jankowski, 2004b). It is assumed, following Sokolov (1963), The present study examines cognitive continuities from
that the infant creates a mental representation during infancy and their relation to pre-adolescent IQ using data
familiarization; when a new target is encountered on test from a longitudinal cohort of children who were seen twice
that does not match a stored representation, attention shifts in infancy (7 and 12 months), twice in the toddler years (24
to the new target so that information about that target may and 36 months), and then again at 11 years. The same
be assimilated. (Thus, preference for a new stimulus can be measures, in the same formats, were used in the infant and
taken as evidence for a stored representation of the old one.) In toddler years to assess performance in four domains —
adolescence and adulthood, on the other hand, visual recogni- processing speed, attention, memory, and representational
tion memory is generally assessed by having subjects store competence. At 11 years, performance in these same four
multiple targets in memory and then indicate the one domains was assessed again, but here the tasks were those
previously seen when it is presented along with a foil in a typically used with adolescents and adults.
forced-choice task. The study had two principal aims: (1) to ascertain
Attention is another process that is measured quite whether there are domain-specific cognitive continuities
differently in infants and older children. In infancy, this from the infant and toddler years to pre-adolescence, and
ability is often inferred from look durations, or the number of (2) to determine the extent to which infant and toddler
shifts in gaze between targets, whereas in older children and information processing abilities relate to 11 year IQ. Showing
adults, attention is often assessed with continuous perfor- that infant and toddler abilities relate to the more traditional
mance tasks, where the subject monitors a repetitive stream instantiations of these constructs would support the idea that
of stimuli for infrequent targets (sustained attention), or with later abilities have their roots in infancy.
S.A. Rose et al. / Intelligence 40 (2012) 445–457 447
and 24 months, four at 36 months, with the number of actions/ onset the child had to abstract the R–R–L rule governing
sequence varying from 3 to 4 at 12 months and 5 to 12 at changes in location from the fast-paced sequence of pictures.
36 months; all actions had to be performed in a set order to Measure: number of series trials with RTs ≤ 150 ms.1
achieve the outcome (‘enabling’) at the two younger ages; a few
actions that could be performed in any order (‘arbitrary’) were 3.6. Attention
introduced into two of the sequences at 36 months (Rose,
Feldman, & Jankowski, 2005a). Measure: mean percent target Look duration, a measure of attentional efficiency (with
actions reproduced in the correct order. short looks associated with better attention) was assessed
using measures culled from a number of different tasks:
3.4. Processing speed familiarization and test phases of both tasks of visual
recognition memory (the ‘Rose’ and the ‘Fagan’), the test
Psychomotor Speed (RT), the time to orient to a stimulus, phase of cross-modal transfer, and trials from the continuous
was assessed with Haith's Visual Expectation Paradigm (VExP; familiarization task. Scores on each task were standardized
Haith, Hazan, & Goodman, 1988). Targets appear briefly on a and then averaged (Rose, Feldman, & Jankowski, 2005b; Rose
computer screen to the L and R of midline, and the latency to et al., 2004a). Measure: composite representing the average
look to each is measured (target durations dropped from 750 to of the six standardized look duration scores.
500 ms as age increased from 7 to 36 months; interstimulus Shift rate, a measure capturing both attentional efficiency
intervals remained at 720 ms throughout). There were 10 and comparison behavior, was assessed by calculating the
baseline trials, where targets appeared randomly, followed by number of shifts between stimuli per second (higher shift
60 predictable trials, where targets appeared in a right–right– rates indicating better attention). These measures were
left (RRL) sequence. A 150 ms cut-point separated anticipatory available from all but one (the ‘Fagan’) of the tasks used for
from reactive saccades; responses that occurred ≥ 150 ms after look duration; scores on each task were standardized and
stimulus onset were scored as reaction times (Rose, Feldman, then averaged (Rose, Feldman, & Jankowski, 2005b; Rose et
Jankowski, & Caro, 2002). Measure: mean RT al., 2004a). Measure: composite, representing the average of
the five standardized shift rate scores.
3.4.1. Encoding speed
This aspect of speed was assessed with the ‘continuous 3.7. Procedure: Pre-adolescent period (11 years)
familiarization’ task, in which infants were presented with a
series of paired photographs of faces, one of which changed Information processing measures included in the 11-year
from trial to trial while the other remained constant (Fantz, follow-up were designed to cover the same four cognitive
1961). Trials were shortened as age increased (from 4 s at 7 domains (memory, processing speed, attention, and repre-
months to 1.5 s at 36 months); testing continued until infants sentational competence) and were chosen to be conceptually
reached a criterion for having a consistent preference for the homologous to those used in the infant and toddler years
new one, defined as a run of 4 out of 5 consecutive trials (Rose, Feldman, & Jankowski, 2005b; Rose, Feldman, &
having a novelty score > 55% but b100% at 7 months (which Jankowski, 2009; Rose, Feldman, Jankowski, & Van Rossem,
increased to a run of 6 out of 7 trials at 36 months), or until 36 2008a). The grouping of measures into these four domains
trials had been presented (Rose, Feldman, & Jankowski, 2002). was supported by confirmatory factor analysis (Rose,
Measure: number of trials to criterion. Feldman, Jankowski, & Van Rossem, 2011).
The tasks included computerized assessments drawn
3.5. Representational Competence largely from two well-standardized batteries, the Cambridge
Neuropsychological Testing Automated Battery (CANTAB;
3.5.1. Tactual-visual cross-modal transfer Cambridge Cognition, 2005) and the Cognitive Abilities Test
This task, which assesses the ability to glean information (CAT; Detterman, 1988), both of which used a touch screen to
about commonalties from experiences and represent them record responses, as well as paper-and-pencil tasks drawn
abstractly, required extracting information about shape by largely from a factor-analytically derived battery, the Specific
feeling an object and then recognizing it visually. In this task, Cognitive Abilities test (SCA; DeFries & Plomin, 1985). Also
comprised of 11 problems, 3-dimensional geometric forms were included were a paper-and-pencil measure of pattern span
presented tactually for familiarization, and then, on test, the (Della Sala, Gray, Baddeley, & Wilson, 1997), a computerized
previously felt object and a new one were presented visually. version of span of apprehension (Bedwell, Esposito, & Miller,
Familiarization times were shortened as age increased (from 2004) created with E-Prime, and an experimentally derived
40 s to 15 s; with test times dropping from 20 s to 10 s); novelty task of cross-modal transfer. The reliabilities of tasks from the
scores were used to index tactual-visual transfer (Rose, Feldman, CANTAB and CAT are good, with internal consistency co-
Wallace, & McCarton, 1991). Measure: mean novelty score. efficients on the CANTAB tasks ranging from .73 to .95 for 4- to
12-year-olds (Luciana & Nelson, 2002) and internal consisten-
3.5.2. Anticipations cy and split-half reliabilities on the CAT and SCA generally .80
The ability to anticipate forthcoming events was measured and above (DeFries & Plomin, 1985; Detterman, 1988). Many of
by the VExP task described above. Saccades to the up-coming the tasks are graded in difficulty, thus minimizing floor and
stimulus were considered to be anticipatory if they were
initiated before the stimulus could be perceived, i.e., ≤ 150 ms 1
Anticipations are not considered further because they did not correlate
of onset (the minimal time thought to be required to initiate a with cross-modal transfer at any age, did not form a latent factor, and did not
saccade; Haith et al., 1988). To successfully anticipate stimulus relate to measures of later cognition.
S.A. Rose et al. / Intelligence 40 (2012) 445–457 449
ceiling effects. The number of children completing any one task response. Trials continue until the child makes 5 consecutive
varied from 126 to 131; data loss on particular tasks was due to correct responses; the presentation time for these 5 trials is
equipment failure, parental time constraints, or failure to the threshold for the block. There are 20 such blocks of trials.
complete the task. Measure: median threshold (in ms) for the 20 blocks.
3.11.2. Span of apprehension (computerized task adapted from alternatives were compared to the original using the chi-
Bedwell et al., 2004) square difference test.
This task of selective attention assesses the accuracy with Continuity models were fit using LISREL (Ver 8.54: Jörskog
which a target can be apprehended when distracters are & Sörbom, 2003) and maximum likelihood estimation, with
present. Each trial (50 ms) consists of 1, 6, or 12 randomly missing data (6.9% of all values) imputed using the Expected
arrayed letters; the child indicates which target – a “T” or “F” – Maximization (EM) algorithm in PRELIS. Model fit was
was present, by pressing one of two computer keys. There are assessed using the normal theory weighted least squares χ2,
six blocks of 10 trials, two for each array size; for a total of 60 the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and
trials. Blocks are presented in pseudo-random order. Measure: the comparative fit index (CFI). Values considered indicative of
number correct (averaged over array size). good fit are a non-significant χ2, a RMSEA b .08 (Browne &
Cudeck, 1993), and a CFI > .90.
3.12. Intelligence A two-group model was also tested for each domain to
determine whether continuities were influenced by birth status
3.12.1. Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-III) (preterm vs full-term). In these models, equality constraints
This test was administered in its entirety and used to were introduced across groups on factor loadings, variances
assess general intellectual functioning. and covariances among latent variables, and path coefficients.
Lisrel was also used to create factor scores from the latent
variables of the continuity models. These were used to
3.12.2. Data analytic plan compare within-domain to cross-domain relations and as
Preliminary analyses first examined univariate and bivar- single indicators in regression models predicting 11-year IQ.
iate distributions for all variables; outlying values (>2.5 SD
from the mean or regression line) were Winsorized. Where 4. Results
necessary (e.g., for reaction times), measures were rescaled to
make higher scores indicate better performance. Because the 4.1. Preliminary analyses
sample involved preterm and full-term groups, all relations
among measures were initially examined separately by group. Descriptive statistics for the measures are shown in Tables 1
and 2, and correlations among the information processing
3.12.3. Structural models of continuity measures in each domain are shown in Table 3. Correlations are
Continuity across the three age periods – infancy, toddler- presented combined across preterms and full-terms because
hood, and 11 years – was assessed using separate models for fewer than 5% of the correlations differed significantly between
each of the four information-processing domains. For each groups; they are partialed for prematurity to avoid their being
model, three latent variables were assumed, one for each age inflated by any mean differences between groups.
period, with information processing at earlier ages predicting The results in Table 3 show that, within each domain,
information processing at later ages. Thus, the influence from measures tended to correlate modestly both within and
infancy to preadolescence was indirect, via toddlerhood. across age; as would be expected, correlations tended to be
Alternative models having one additional path, a direct path greater across adjacent ages. The same trend was also true of
from infancy to 11-years, were tested for each domain. These associations of information processing with 11-year IQ.
Table 1
Descriptive statistics for infant and toddler measures.
M SD M SD M SD M SD
Memory
Immediate recognition (% novelty) 59.39 5.10 58.98 4.47 57.84 4.09 59.02 5.39
Delayed recognition (% novelty) 56.11 5.98 54.47 6.46 58.08 6.93 62.59 7.48
Recall (% targets reproduced in correct order) – – 38.07 19.40 56.63 20.92 75.37 17.51
Processing speed
Encoding speed (trials to criterion)a 17.50 10.90 10.83 7.91 9.19 5.35 20.57 10.92
Psychomotor speed — RT (ms) 329.45 38.03 294.39 31.36 233.08 29.90 218.36 26.16
Attention
Look duration (mean of standardized scores)b .05 .66 .01 .62 − .03 .62 − .01 .61
Shift rate (mean of standardized scores)b .04 .74 − .02 .69 − .06 .69 − .04 .76
Representational competence
Tactual–visual cross-modal transfer (% novelty) 48.95 5.37 48.45 4.70 48.93 5.15 47.90 5.25
Anticipations (%) 16.24 12.48 24.98 15.33 15.54 10.96 20.34 12.48
Note 1. N = 113–131 (The sample is restricted to those who returned for follow-up at 11 years).
Note 2. Since the parameters of many tasks were adjusted to make them age-appropriate, developmental change cannot be computed on these data.
a
Children took longer to reach criterion at 36 than 24 months because trial times were shorter and the criterion more stringent.
b
Restricting the sample to those who had data at 11 years resulted in the mean of standardized scores deviating slightly from zero.
S.A. Rose et al. / Intelligence 40 (2012) 445–457 451
Table 2 the original, Δχ 2 (1) = 0.50, and the direct path from infancy
Descriptive statistics for 11-year measures. to 11 years was non- significant. 2
Information processing measures and IQ M SD
Memory
4.4. Continuity in memory
Pattern recognition (% correct) 82.98 11.36
Delayed match-to-sample (# correct) 77.50 12.02 In this domain, the latent variables for infancy and
Spatial recognition (% correct) 78.73 11.09 toddlerhood were indexed by measures representing imme-
Probe recall (% correct) 41.11 6.42
diate recognition, delayed recognition, and recall. The 11-year
Name–face association (# correct) 4.05 1.91
Processing speed latent variable was indexed by 6 measures, 4 representing
Tachistoscopic threshold (ms) 136.62 68.19 recognition (from the spatial recognition, pattern recognition,
Reaction time (ms) 553.66 116.74 and immediate and delayed-match-to-sample tasks) and 2
Match-to-sample (# correct minus incorrect) 12.24 3.90 representing recall (probe recall and name–face association).
Attention
This model, shown in Fig. 3, fit the data, with χ2 (117)
Rapid visual processing (# false alarms) 3.52 4.10
Rapid visual processing (# hits) 20.03 3.16 = 166.58, p b .01, RMSEA = .06, CFI = .91, RMSEA = .06,
Span of apprehension (# correct) 74.63 10.65 CFI = .91. The factor loadings ranged from .19 to .61 and
Representational competence were all significant at p b .01, with the exception of 7-month
Tactual-visual cross-modal transfer — rotated 4.84 1.80
delayed recognition with λ = .19 (which was only marginally
(# correct)
Spatial relations (#correct) 10.29 6.43 significant, p b .10). Paths from infancy to toddlerhood
Hidden patterns (# correct minus incorrect) 22.77 10.75 (β = .88) and toddlerhood to 11 years (β = .50) were both
Intelligence(WISC-III) significant (pb .05), reflecting considerable stability in mem-
Full scale IQ scores 92.05 13.34 ory across age from infancy to 11 years. The indirect effect of
Note 1. N = 131. infant memory on 11-year memory was .44 (pb .001). Here
too, the alternative model did not differ from the original, Δχ2
(2) = 0.58, and the direct path from infancy to 11 years was
non-significant.
Table 3
Within-domain correlations among individual measures and IQ.
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Attention
1 Looks — 7 mo .34 .78 .31 .20 .19 .14 .15 .09 .25 .19 .10
2 Looks — 12 mo .42 .75 .30 .36 .22 .22 .17 .08 .05 − .07
3 Shifts — 7 mo .38 .27 .27 .25 .21 .01 .08 .13 .01
4 Shifts — 12 mo .27 .29 .28 .32 .17 .12 .09 .08
5 Looks — 2 years .38 .82 .32 .21 − .16 .02 .06
6 Looks — 3 years .48 .78 .20 .30 .31 .14
7 Shifts — 2 years .53 .20 − .13 .05 .07
8 Shifts — 3 years .20 .28 .29 .15
9 SOA — 11 years .18 .28 .26
10 RVP (false alarms) — 11 years .45 .38
11 RVP (hits) — 11 years .39
12 Full-scale IQ — 11 years
Processing speed
1 Reaction time — 7 mo .31 .44 .40 .14 .03 .09 .04
2 Reaction time — 12 mo .37 .20 .20 .06 .08 .17
3 Reaction time — 2 years .59 .14 .29 .11 .06
4 Reaction time — 3 years .23 .20 .08 .10
5 Reaction time — 11 years .34 .22 .29
6 Tach. thresh. — 11 years .26 .33
7 Perceptual speed — 11 years .55
8 Full-scale IQ — 11 years
Memory
1 Recognition — 7 mo .28 .27 .15 .18 .28 .32 .24 .16 .09 .08 .03 .20 .04 .10 .24 .04 .22
2 Recognition — 12 mo .05 .14 .06 .19 .33 .12 .28 .09 .12 .12 .12 − .05 .00 .09 .12 .13
3 Delayed recognition — 7 mo − .07 .04 .10 − .05 .11 − .08 .07 .04 .01 .02 − .07 .10 .09 .14 .12
4 Delayed recognition — 12 mo .23 .12 .23 .21 .24 .13 .04 .09 .10 .09 .02 − .07 .00 .00
5 Recall — 12 mo .15 .09 .15 .11 .16 .30 .21 .18 .17 .09 .16 .20 .18
6 Recognition — 2 years .35 .29 .12 − .05 .12 .14 .17 .15 .11 .03 .01 .27
7 Recognition — 3 years .38 .14 .07 .10 .26 .17 .12 .07 .07 .05 .22
8 Delayed recognition — 2 years .23 .04 .21 .22 .19 .09 .13 − .04 .02 .21
9 Delayed recognition — 3 years .18 .16 .23 .08 − .01 .04 − .02 .03 .04
10 Recall — 2 years .41 .14 .19 .17 .02 .22 .13 .13
11 Recall — 3 years .34 .32 .31 .14 .21 .12 .32
12 Pattern recognition I — 11 years .27 .36 .27 .35 .27 .27
13 Pattern recognition II — 11 years .35 .37 .28 .30 .34
14 Spatial recognition — 11 years .25 .31 .28 .24
15 Delayed match — 11 years .34 .17 .30
16 Probe recall — 11 years .26 .39
17 Name face — 11 years .20
18 Full-scale IQ — 11 years
Representation competence
1 Cross-modal transfer — 7 mo .25 .04 .16 .01 .15 − .02 .12
2 Cross-modal transfer — 12 mo .11 .26 .22 .14 .11 .28
3 Cross-modal transfer — 2 years .29 .16 .00 − .06 − .02
4 Cross-modal transfer — 3 years .13 .25 .23 .33
5 Cross-modal (rotated) — 11 years .20 .22 .33
6 Hidden figures — 11 years .50 .50
7 Spatial relations — 11 years .43
8 Full-scale IQ — 11 years
Note. N = 100–131; correlations are partialed for prematurity. Abbreviations: SOA — span of apprehension: RVP — rapid visual processing.
Correlations of .18 are significant at p ≤ .05; correlations of .24 are significant at p ≤ .01.
All measures are scaled so that high scores indicate better performance.
and path coefficients. The results indicated that, for all four 4.7. Within-domain versus cross-domain relations
domains, the same continuity model fit well in both groups:
attention — χ 2 (33) = 36.40, p = .31, RMSEA = .05, CFI = .98; Because there were too few cases to use latent variables for
processing speed — χ 2 (33) = 40.49, p = .17, RMSEA = .06, comparisons involving multiple domains and multiple ages,
CFI = .96; memory — χ 2 (254) = 306.84, p = .01, RMSEA = latent factor scores (created from the continuity models) were
.06, CFI = .84; representational competence — χ 2 (32) = used for this purpose. Latent factor scores were correlated
29.97, p = .51, RMSEA = .00, CFI = 1.00. In this last model, the with one another, both within and across domains (with
equality constraint for one parameter (loading of 2-year average correlations calculated using Fisher r to z trans-
cross-modal transfer on toddler representational compe- formations). As shown in Table 4, the average within-domain
tence) had to be dropped to achieve good fit. correlations, which reflect continuity over age (.28 to .61;
S.A. Rose et al. / Intelligence 40 (2012) 445–457 453
5. Discussion
Fig. 3. Structural equation model of continuity in memory: infancy → toddlerhood → 11 years. All path coefficients and factor loadings are significant (p b .05),
with the exception of the loading of 7-month delayed recognition on the infant factor, which was marginal (p b .10).
avoid confounding cohort and domain differences. Second, this 2005a), here we showed that their predictive power extends
is the first study to use latent variables to examine continuities into pre-adolescence. The infant, toddler, and contemporane-
from infancy. Since latent variables extract the common ous 11-year measures accounted for 12.3%, 18.8%, and 47.2% of
variance that is shared among multiple tasks, we were able the variance in 11-year IQ, respectively.
to minimize task-specific variance and measurement error
(Friedman et al., 2006). Third, this is also the first study to 5.1. Within-domain relations: establishing continuity for
examine the relative contributions of a variety of different information processing abilities from infancy to 11 years
abilities from infancy and toddlerhood to mature IQ. While we
had previously shown that core abilities from infancy and This study also extends previous research showing cross-
toddlerhood predict MDI at 2 and 3 years (Rose, Feldman & age continuities in several important ways. First, our results
Jankowski, 2005c; Rose, Feldman, Jankowski, & Van Rossem, replicate earlier findings (Rose & Feldman, 1997; Rose, Feldman,
S.A. Rose et al. / Intelligence 40 (2012) 445–457 455
Table 4
Within-domain and cross-domain correlations among latent factor scores and with 11-year IQ.
Infant Toddler 11 years Infant Toddler 11 years Infant Toddler 11 years Infant Toddler 11 years
Attention
Infant .42⁎⁎⁎ .12 .24⁎⁎ .35⁎⁎⁎ .15† .24⁎⁎ .24⁎⁎ .17⁎ − .04 − .04 .07
Toddler .28⁎⁎ .15† .20⁎ .19⁎ .17⁎ .17⁎ .12 .05 .08 .04
11 years .18⁎ .13 .48⁎⁎⁎ .07 .15† .31⁎⁎⁎ .09 .08 .29⁎⁎
Speed
Infant .75⁎⁎⁎ .29⁎⁎⁎ .21⁎ .26⁎⁎ .27⁎⁎ − .10 − .09 .17†
Toddler .39⁎⁎⁎ .20⁎ .23⁎⁎ .23⁎⁎ − .07 − .08 .14
11 years .19⁎ .21⁎ .39⁎⁎⁎ .11 .10 .38⁎⁎⁎
Memory
Infant .78⁎⁎⁎ .43⁎⁎⁎ .14† .11 17⁎
Toddler .54⁎⁎⁎ .20⁎ .05 .26⁎⁎
11 years .21⁎ .03 .34⁎⁎⁎
Representational competence
Infant .48⁎⁎ .15†
Toddler .32⁎⁎⁎
11 years
11-year full-scale IQ .03 .12 .40⁎⁎⁎ .12 .10 .45⁎⁎⁎ .25⁎⁎ .29⁎⁎⁎ .43⁎⁎⁎ .26⁎⁎ .31⁎⁎ .54⁎⁎
†
p ≤ .10.
⁎
p ≤ .05.
⁎⁎
p ≤ .01.
⁎⁎⁎
p ≤ .001.
456 S.A. Rose et al. / Intelligence 40 (2012) 445–457
DeFries, J. C., & Plomin, R. (1985). Origins of individual differences in infancy: Rose, S. A., & Feldman, J. F. (1997). Memory and speed: Their role in the
The Colorado Adoption Project. Orlando, Florida: Academic Press. relation of infant information processing to later IQ. Child Development,
Della Sala, S., Gray, C., Baddeley, A., & Wilson, L. (1997). Visual patterns test: A 68, 630–641.
test of short-term visual recall. Bury St Edmunds: Thames Valley Test Rose, S. A., Feldman, J. F., Futterweit, L. R., & Jankowski, J. J. (1997). Continuity
Company. in visual recognition memory: Infancy to 11 years. Intelligence, 24,
Detterman, D. K. (1987). Theoretical notions of intelligence and mental 381–392.
retardation. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 92, 2–11. Rose, S. A., Feldman, J. F., Futterweit, L. R., & Jankowski, J. J. (1998). Continuity
Detterman, D. K. (1988). CAT: Cognitive abilities test (unpublished test). Ohio: in tactual–visual cross-modal transfer: Infancy to 11 years. Developmen-
Cleveland. tal Psychology, 34, 435–440.
Diamond, A. (1990). Rate of maturation of the hippocampus and the Rose, S. A., Feldman, J. F., & Jankowski, J. J. (2001). Attention and recognition
developmental progression of children's performance on the delayed memory in the first year of life: A longitudinal study of preterms and
non-matching to sample and visual paired comparison tasks. In A. full-terms. Developmental Psychology, 37, 135–151.
Diamond (Ed.), Development and neural bases of higher cognitive functions. Rose, S. A., Feldman, J. F., & Jankowski, J. J. (2002a). Processing speed in the
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 608. (pp. 394–426) New York: 1st year of life: A longitudinal study of preterm and full-term infants.
Academic Press. Developmental Psychology, 38(6), 895–902.
Dougherty, T. M., & Haith, M. M. (1997). Infant expectations and reaction Rose, S. A., Feldman, J. F., & Jankowski, J. J. (2004a). Dimensions of cognition
time as predictors of childhood speed of processing and IQ. Develop- in infancy. Intelligence, 32, 245–262.
mental Psychology, 33, 146–155. Rose, S. A., Feldman, J. F., & Jankowski, J. J. (2004b). Infant visual recognition
Fagan, J. F. (1970). Memory in the infant. Journal of Experimental Child memory. Developmental Review, 24, 74–100.
Psychology, 9, 217–226. Rose, S. A., Feldman, J. F., & Jankowski, J. J. (2005a). Recall memory in the first
Fagan, J. F. (2011). Intelligence in infancy. In R. J. Sternberg, & S. B. Kaufman three years of life: A longitudinal study of preterms and full-terms.
(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of intelligence (pp. 130–142). New York: Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 47, 653–659.
Cambridge University Press. Rose, S. A., Feldman, J. F., & Jankowski, J. J. (2005b). The structure of infant
Fagan, J. F., Holland, C. R., & Wheeler, K. (2007). The prediction, from infancy, cognition at 1 year. Intelligence, 33(3), 231–250. http://dx.doi.org/10.
of adult IQ and achievement. Intelligence, 35, 225–231. 1016/j.intell.2004.11.002.
Fagan, J. F., & Shepherd, P. (1989). The Fagan test of infant intelligence. Rose, S. A., Feldman, J. F., & Jankowski, J. J. (2009). Information processing in
Cleveland, Ohio: Infantest Corp. toddlers: Continuity from infancy and persistence of preterm deficits.
Fantz, R. L. (1961). Visual experience in infants: Decreased attention to Intelligence, 37, 311–320.
familiar patterns relative to novel ones. Science, 146, 668–670. Rose, S. A., Feldman, J. F., Jankowski, J. J., & Caro, D. M. (2002b). A longitudinal
Friedman, N. P., Miyake, A., Corley, R. P., Young, S. E., Defries, J. C., & Hewitt, J. K. study of visual expectation and reaction time in the first year of life.
(2006). Not all executive functions are related to intelligence. Psychological Child Development, 73, 47–61.
Science, 17, 172–179. Rose, S. A., Feldman, J. F., Jankowski, J. J., & Van Rossem, R. (2005c). Pathways
Fry, A. F., & Hale, S. (1996). Processing speed, working memory, and fluid from prematurity and infant abilities to later cognition. Child Develop-
intelligence: Evidence for a developmental cascade. Psychological Science, 7, ment, 76(6), 1172–1184. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.
237–241. 00843.x.
Garrett, H. E. (1946). A developmental theory of intelligence. American Rose, S. A., Feldman, J. F., Jankowski, J. J., & Van Rossem, R. (2008a). A
Psychologist, 1, 372–378. cognitive cascade in infancy: Pathways from prematurity to later mental
Haith, M. M., Hazan, C., & Goodman, G. S. (1988). Expectation and development. Intelligence, 36(4), 367–378. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.
anticipation of dynamic visual events by 3.5-month-old babies. Child 2007.07.003.
Development, 59, 467–479. Rose, S. A., Feldman, J. F., Jankowski, J. J., & Van Rossem, R. (2011). Basic
Hollingshead, A. B. (1975). The four-factor index of social status. Unpublished information processing abilities at 11 years account for deficits in IQ
manuscript, Yale University (Available from A.B. Hollingshead, Depart- associated with preterm birth. Intelligence, 39, 198–209.
ment of Sociology, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520). Rose, S. A., Feldman, J. F., & Wallace, I. F. (1992). Infant information
James, T. W., Humphrey, G. K., Gati, J. S., Servos, P., Menon, R. S., & Goodale, processing in relation to six-year cognitive outcome. Child Development,
M. A. (2002). Haptic study of three-dimensional objects activates extra- 63, 1126–1141.
striate visual areas. Neuropsychologia, 40, 1706–1714. Rose, S. A., Feldman, J. F., Wallace, I. F., & McCarton, C. (1991). Information
Jensen, A. R. (1987). Individual differences in the Hick paradigm. In P. A. processing at 1 year: Relation to birth status and developmental outcome
Vernon (Ed.), Speed of information-processing and intelligence. Norwoord, during the first five years. Developmental Psychology, 27, 723–737.
NJ: Ablex. Salthouse, T. A. (1996). The processing-speed theory of adult age differences
Jörskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (2003). LISREL (Version 8.54). : Scientific Software in cognition. Psychological Review, 103, 403–428.
International, Inc. Sigman, M., Cohen, S. E., & Beckwith, L. (1997). Why does infant attention
Kail, R. (1986). Sources of age differences in speed of processing. Child predict adolescent intelligence? Infant Behavior and Development, 20,
Development, 57, 969–987. 133–140.
Kail, R. (1988). Developmental functions for speeds of cognitive processing. Sigman, M., Cohen, S. E., Beckwith, L., Asarnow, R., & Parmelee, A. H. (1991).
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 45, 339–364. Continuity in cognitive abilities from infancy to 12 years of age. Cognitive
Kail, R., & Salthouse, T. A. (1994). Processing speed as a mental capacity. Acta Development, 6, 47–57.
Psychologica, 86, 199–225. Sokolov, E. N. (1963). Perception and the conditioned reflex. Oxford: Pergamon.
Luciana, M., & Nelson, C. A. (2002). Assessment of neuropsychological function Thompson, L. A., Detterman, D. K., & Plomin, R. (1991). Associations between
through use of the Cambridge Neuropsychological Testing Automated cognitive abilities and scholastic achievement: Genetic overlap but
Battery: Performance in 4- to 12-year-old children. Developmental environmental differences. Psychological Science, 2, 158–165.
Neuropsychology, 22(3), 595–624.