1. The relationship between general intelligence and performance on a multiple relational abilities test
Dylan cOLBERT, Luke Tuohy, Bryan Roche (Maynooth University)
Ian Stewart (National University of Ireland, Galway)
Ian Grey (Zayed Univeristy)

2. Behaviour Analysis & Intelligence
Intelligence is commonly believed to lie beyond the remit and descriptive powers of behavior analysis
Theoretical objections to hypothetical constructs (Skinner, 1974)
Preference for functional accounts
Apparent difficulty in accounting for the generativity of language and cognition
However, advances in a behavior-analytic account of language and cognition, known as Relational Frame Theory (RFT; Hayes et al., 2001; see also Dymond & Roche, 2013) have led to new insights into how we might conceive intellectual behaviour
as well as the development of intervention protocols that have shown early promise in increasing intelligence quotients (Cassidy et al., 2011; 2016)
As such, RFT-inspired measures are increasingly being looked upon within the behavior-analytic community as conceptually-sound proxies for IQ with acceptable construct validity.

3. Relational Frame Theory
RFT represents the convergence of several decades of research focused on a key skills repertoire known as derived relational responding.
the process of responding to one stimulus in terms of its contextually controlled arbitrary relationship to another.
Relational responding comes in a variety of other forms or ‘frames’
coordination “cat is the same as kitty”
opposition “big is opposite to small”
hierarchy “an apple is a type of fruit”
analogy “foot is to sock, as hand is to glove”
Perspective-taking “I am here and you are there”
temporality “morning comes before afternoon”
RFT suggests that a relatively small variety of relational frames may yield the full array of cognitive skills, like deductive reasoning, problem solving, analogies and language
*referred to as a verb rather than a noun, to draw attention to framing as a behavioral skill rather than to frames as mental entities.

4. Derived Relational Responding
If an individual is taught the relation between a set of stimuli, he/she will then be able to further derive relations that have not be explicitly trained.
Furthermore, following training on a sufficient number of exemplars with a wide array of stimuli, derived relational responding emerges as a generalized operant.

5. Relational Responding & Intelligence
Many standard IQ tests contain items that can be understood in terms of relational frames and as tests of derived relational responding
Various correlational analyses have identified the close relationship between relational responding proficiency and performance on a number of IQ indices and subtests
Temporal RR with WAIS-III Vocabulary & Arithmetic O’Hora et al., 2005
Temporal RR with WAIS-III Full Scale & Verbal IQ O’Hora et al., 2008
Temporal and Distinction RR with K-BIT scores O’Toole et al., 2009
Perspective-taking RR with WASi Full, Verbal & Performance IQ Gore et al., 2010
Comparison and Coordination RR with Verbal Reasoning & Numerical Reasoning Cassidy et al., 2016
Comparison and Coordination RR with Full Scale, Verbal, Performance IQ Colbert et al., 2017

6. Colbert, Dobutowitsch, Roche & Brophy (2017)
Preliminary assessment of the Relational Abilities Index (RAI) as a proxy measure of Full Scale IQ & general cognitive ability
The RAI is a 55-item assessment of Coordination/Opposition and Comparison relations
Originally devised by Cassidy et al., 2011, later developed by Cassidy et al. 2016
Each task involves the presentation of 1-3 relational premises, followed by a relational question
Nonsense stimuli used as trial stimuli (e.g. BEF, CUG)
Difficulty is increased by controlling
Number of relational premises (1-4)
Number of relations
Directionality of relational question
Order of relational premises

7. Sample RAI items

8. Colbert et al. (2017) Results
In Study 1 (n = 35), the degree of relationship between RAI scores and performance on a number of general cognitive ability measures was investigated
Significant correlations:
National Adult Reading Test (r = .58, p < .001)
Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (r = .69, p < .001)
Trial Making Test (r = .36, p < .05)
RAI scores did not correlate with Cognitive Failures Questionnaire
In Study 2 (n = 25), RAI scores correlated significantly with:
Full Scale IQ (r = .74, p < .001)
Verbal IQ (r = .78, p < .001)
Performance IQ (r = .55, p < .005)
All four IQ subindices (r = .43 – 64)
10 of 13 IQ subtests (r = )

9. Discussion
RAI displays considerable utility in providing an estimation of general intellectual performance
Outperforms several well-validated short form & proxy measures of IQ
Correlations between RAI scores and every WAIS IQ index and subtest
Indicate relational responding is germane to linguistic performance
RAI scores did not correlate with 3 of 13 IQ subtests
Interestingly, these three subtests (Picture Completion, Digit-Symbol Coding & Picture Arrangement) bear the weakest relationship to Full Scale IQ, along with Digit Span.

10. The Current Study
Aimed to extend upon the results of Colbert et al. (2017) by investigating the relationship between Full Scale IQ (as measured by WASI) and a more extensive relational responding battery.
The Multiple Relational Assessment Procedure
5 sections assessing different relational frames
16 questions per section
Approximately 30 minute administration time
Wechsler Abbreviated Intelligence scale (WASi)

11. 3. Temporal (before/after)
Sample MRAT Tasks
1. Distinction (same/different)
2. Coordination (same/opposite)
3. Temporal (before/after)

12. Sample MRAT Tasks
4. Analogy
5. Perspective taking

13. Preliminary Results (N = 36)
Significant correlations were found for Full Scale IQ and total MRAT score (r = .63, p <.001) and Coordination relations (r = .62, p < .001)
Scores for Distinction relations and Temporal relations were approaching significance
No significant correlation found for Analogical or Perspective-taking relations
Verbal IQ correlated significantly with Total MRAT score (r = .38, p <.05), Distinction relations (r = .36, p < .05) and Coordination relations (r = .35, p < .05).
Performance IQ correlated significantly with Total MRAT score (r = .66, p < .001), Coordination (r = .68, p < . 001) and Temporal (r = .45, p <.01) relations

14. Discussion
Coordination relations displayed closest relationship to intellectual performance
Significant correlations for the three main IQ indices
Supporting Cassidy et al., 2016 & Colbert et al., 2017
Lack of relationship between IQ and Analogical and Perspective-taking relations
Does not support Gore et al., 2010
Comparative brevity of MRAT (16 vs. 34 trials)
Mean IQ (113 vs. 63)
MRAT is less effective in predicting IQ when compared to the RAI
RAI’s heavier emphasis on Coordination relations
More extensive blocks
WASi vs. WAIS

15. Implications
Assessments of relational responding show considerable promise as proxy measurements of general intellectual performance
There is considerable functional overlap between IQ and RR assessments
Further implicating the importance of this type of responding to intelligence
Further research is required to further elucidate the nature of this relationship
Multiple regression procedures
Fluency metrics

16. The relationship between general intelligence and performance on a multiple relational abilities test
Dylan cOLBERT, Luke Tuohy, Bryan Roche (Maynooth University)
Ian Stewart (National University of Ireland, Galway)
Ian Grey (Zayed Univeristy)