Participants had to infer the relationships among the items in the matrix and choose an answer that correctly completed each matrix. In the

final subtest (Conditions) participants saw 10 sets of abstract figures consisting of lines and a single dot along with five alternatives. The participants had to assess the relationship among the dot, figures, and lines, and choose the alternative in which a dot could be placed according to the same relationship. A participant’s score was the total number of items solved correctly across all four subtests. Descriptive statistics are shown in Table 1. Most measures had generally acceptable values of reliability and most of the measures were approximately normally selleck chemicals distributed with values

of skewness and kurtosis under the generally accepted values.1 Correlations Afatinib among the laboratory tasks, shown in Table 2, were weak to moderate in magnitude with measures of the same construct generally correlating stronger with one another than with measures of other constructs, indicating both convergent and discriminant validity within the data. First, confirmatory factor analysis was used to test several measurement models to determine the structure of the data. Specifically, five measurement models were specified to determine how WM storage, capacity, AC, SM, and gF were related to one another. Measurement Model 1 tested the notion that WM storage, capacity, AC, and SM are best conceptualized as a single unitary construct. This could be due to a single executive attention factor that is needed in all (e.g., Engle, Tuholski, Laughlin, & Conway, 1999). Thus, in this model all of the memory and attention measures loaded onto a single factor and the three gF measures loaded onto a separate gF factor Clomifene and these factors were allowed to correlate. Measurement Model 2 tested the notion that WM storage and

AC were best thought of as a single factor, but this factor was separate from the capacity and SM factors and all were allowed to correlate with the gF factor. This could be due to the fact that WM storage measures primarily reflect attention control abilities which are distinct from more basic memory abilities. Thus, in this model the WM storage and AC measures loaded onto a single factor, the capacity measures loaded onto a separate capacity factor, the SM measures loaded onto a separate SM factor and all of these factors were allowed to correlate with each other and with the gF factor. Measurement Model 3 tested the notion that WM storage and SM were best thought of as a single factor that was separate from AC and capacity. This would suggest that WM storage measures primarily reflect secondary memory abilities which are distinct from attention control abilities and differences in capacity (e.g., Ericsson and Kintsch, 1995 and Mogle et al., 2008).