Bartholomew David J, Deary Ian J, Lawn Martin
London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.
Psychol Rev. 2009 Jul;116(3):567-79. doi: 10.1037/a0016262.
Modern factor analysis is the outgrowth of Spearman's original "2-factor" model of intelligence, according to which a mental test score is regarded as the sum of a general factor and a specific factor. As early as 1914, Godfrey Thomson realized that the data did not require this interpretation and he demonstrated this by proposing what became known as his "bonds" model of intelligence. Van der Maas et al. (2006) have recently drawn attention to what they perceive as difficulties with both models and have proposed a 3rd model. Neither alternative requires the general factor that was at the core of Spearman's idea. Although Thomson's model has been largely forgotten, the authors show that it merits further consideration because it can compete, statistically and biologically, on equal terms with Spearman's model. In particular, they show that it is impossible to distinguish statistically between the 2 models. There are also lessons to be learnt from the way in which Thomson arrived at his model and from the subsequent debate between Spearman and Thomson. The extent to which the recent proposal by van der Maas et al. may offer any advantage over Spearman's and Thomson's models is unclear and requires further investigation.
现代因素分析是斯皮尔曼最初的智力“双因素”模型的产物，根据该模型，心理测试分数被视为一个一般因素和一个特殊因素的总和。早在1914年，戈弗雷·汤姆森就意识到数据并不需要这种解释，他通过提出后来被称为他的智力“联结”模型来证明了这一点。范德马斯等人（2006年）最近提请人们注意他们所认为的这两种模型存在的困难，并提出了第三种模型。这两种替代模型都不需要处于斯皮尔曼思想核心的一般因素。尽管汤姆森的模型在很大程度上已被遗忘，但作者表明它值得进一步考虑，因为在统计学和生物学方面，它可以与斯皮尔曼的模型相媲美。特别是，他们表明在统计学上无法区分这两种模型。从汤姆森得出他的模型的方式以及随后斯皮尔曼和汤姆森之间的争论中也能学到一些经验教训。范德马斯等人最近提出的模型相对于斯皮尔曼和汤姆森的模型是否具有任何优势尚不清楚，需要进一步研究。
