International journal of


EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN:2313-626X

Frequency: 12

line decor
line decor

Volume 4, Issue 11 (November 2017), Pages: 28-34


Original Research Paper

Title: Investigating the construct validity of Sternberg’s triarchic abilities test level-H (Arabic version)

Author(s): Rana TH. Momani *, Salem A. Gharaibeh


Psychology Department, Qassim University, Buraideh, Saudi Arabia

Full Text - PDF          XML


Intelligence was traditionally considered as a unitary concept until Robert Sternberg proposed his triarchic intelligence theory and developed the Sternberg Triarchic Abilities Test (STAT) to measure triarchic intelligence. The present study aimed at investigating the construct validity of the Arabic version of STAT level-H by comparing different theoretical models as proposed by Sternberg. Results of the correlation analysis showed insignificant correlations between three aspects of intelligence, namely analytical, practical, and creative abilities. Confirmatory factor analysis results confirmed the structural validity of STAT, as the model of three uncorrelated abilities was deemed as the best fit. The model of general intelligence was insufficient to consider STAT as a measure of general intelligence (g). The current results support Sternberg’s results, while many other researchers’ findings claimed that STAT is just a measure of (g). 

© 2017 The Authors. Published by IASE.

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (

Keywords: Triarchic intelligence theory, Construct validity, Sternberg, STAT-H

Article History: Received 1 June 2017, Received in revised form 13 September 2017, Accepted 17 September 2017

Digital Object Identifier:


Momani RTH and Gharaibeh SA (2017). Investigating the construct validity of Sternberg’s triarchic abilities test level-H (Arabic version). International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 4(11): 28-34

Permanent Link:


References (35)

  1. Azuma H and Kashiwagi K (1987). Descriptions for an intelligent person: A Japanese study. Japanese Psychological Research, 29(1): 17-26. 
  2. Bandalos DL and Finney J (2001). Item parceling issues in structural equation modeling. In: Marcoulides GA and Shumaker RE (Eds.), Advanced structural equation modeling: New developments and techniques: 269-296. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, USA.     
  3. Bentler PM and Chou CP (1987). Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociological Methods and Research, 16(1): 78-117. 
  4. Berry JW (1974). Radical cultural relativism and the concept of intelligence. In: Berry JW and Dasen PR (Eds.), Culture and cognition: Readings in cross-cultural psychology: 225-229. Methuen, London, UK.     
  5. Brody N (2001). Inspection time: Past, present, and future. Intelligence, 29(6): 537-542. 
  6. Brody N (2003). Construct validation of the Sternberg triarchic abilities test comment and reanalysis. Intelligence, 31(4): 319-329. 
  7. Chooi WT, Long LE, and Thompson A (2014). The sternberg triarchic abilities test (Level-H) is a measure of G. Journal of Intelligence, 2(3): 56-67. 
  8. Ekinci B (2014). The relationships among Sternberg's triarchic abilities, gardner's multiple intelligences, and academic achievement. Social Behavior and Personality, 42(4): 625-633. 
  9. Fadli F (2008). The relationship between three dimensional intelligence and teenager students: Meta-cognition process within demographic changes in the state of Kuwait. Ph.D Dissertation, Amman Arab University, Jordan, Amman.     
  10. Gefen D, Rigdon E, and Straub D (2011). An update and extension to SEM guidelines for administrative and social science research. MIS Quarterly. 35(2): 3-14.     
  11. Gottfredson LS (2003). Dissecting practical intelligence theory: Its claims and evidence. Intelligence, 31(4): 343-397. 
  12. Grigorenko EL and Sternberg RJ (2001). Analytical, creative, and practical intelligence as predictors of self-reported adaptive functioning: A case study in Russia. Intelligence, 29(1): 57-73. 
  13. Hayduk L, Cummings G, Boadu K, Pazderka-Robinson H, and Boulianne S (2007). Testing! Testing! One, two, three: Testing the theory in structural equation models. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5): 841-850. 
  14. Hu LT and Bentler PM (1999). Cut off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1): 1-55. 
  15. Kaufman SB and Singer JL (2004). Applying the theory of successful intelligence to psychotherapy training and practice. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 23(4): 325-355. 
  16. Kline RB (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford Publications, New York, USA.     
  17. Lutz C (1985). Ethnopsychology compared to what? Explaining behavior and consciousness among the Ifaluk. In: White GM and Kirkpatrick J (Eds.), Person, self, and experience: Exploring pacific ethnopsychology: 35-79. University of California Press, Berkeley, USA.     
  18. MacCallum RC (2003). 2001 presidential address: working with imperfect models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 38(1): 113-139. PMid:26771126     
  19. Marsh HW and O'Neill R (1984). Self-description questionnaire III (SDQ III): The construct validity of multidimensional self-concept ratings by late-adolescents. Journal of Educational Measurement, 21(2): 153-174. 
  20. Marsh HW, Hau KT, Balla JR and Grayson D (1998). Is more ever too much? The number of indicators per factor in confirmatory factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 33(2): 181-220.  PMid:26771883 
  21. Marsh HW, Lüdtke O, Nagengast B, and Morin AJS (2013). Why item parcels are (almost) never appropriate: two wrongs do not make a right camouflaging misspecification with item parcels in CFA models. Psychological Methods, 18(3): 257-284.  PMid:23834417     
  22. Pablos PO (2015). Technological solutions for sustainable business practice in Asia. IGI Global, Hershey, USA. 
  23. Poole FJP (1985). Coming in to social being: Cultural images of infants in Bimin-Kuskusmin folk psychology. In: White GM and Kirkpatrick J (Eds.), Person, self, and experience: Exploring pacific ethnopsychology: 183-242. University of California Press, Berkeley, USA.     
  24. Ruzgis P and Grigorenko E (1994). Cultural meaning systems, intelligence, and personality. In: Sternberg RJ and Ruzgis P (Eds.), Personality and Intelligence: 248-270. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.     
  25. Sternberg R (1997). The concept of intelligence and its role in lifelong learning and success. American Psychologist, 52(10): 1030-1037. 
  26. Sternberg R (2003). A broad view of intelligence: The theory of successful intelligence. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 55(3): 139-154. 
  27. Sternberg R and Grigorenko E (2006). Cultural intelligence and successful intelligence. Group and Organization Management, 31(1): 27-39. 
  28. Sternberg R, Castejon J, Prieto M, Hautamäki J, and Grigorenko E (2001a). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Sternberg Triarchic Abilities Test in three international samples: an empirical test of the triarchic theory of intelligence. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17(1): 1-16. 
  29. Sternberg R, Forsythe G, Horvath J, Hedlund J, Snook S, Williams W, and Grigorenko E (2000). Practical intelligence in everyday life. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.     
  30. Sternberg R, Grigorenko E, Ferrari M, and Clinkenbeard P (1999). A triarchic analysis of an aptitude-treatment interaction. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 15(1): 3-13. 
  31. Sternberg RJ, Grigorenko E, and Bundy DA (2001b). The predictive value of IQ. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 47(1): 1-41. 
  32. White G (1985). Premises and purposes in a Solomon Island ethnopsychology. In: White GM and Kirkpatrick J (Eds.), Person, self, and experience: Exploring pacific etnopsychology: 328-366. University of California Press, Berkeley, USA.     
  33. Williams L and O'Boyle E (2008). Measurement models for linking latent variables and indicators: A review of human resource management research using parcels. Human Resource Management Review, 18(4): 233-242. 
  34. Yang C, Nay S, and Hoyle R (2010). Three approaches to using lengthy ordinal scales in structural equation models: Parceling, latent scoring, and shortening scales. Applied Psychological Measurement, 34(2): 122-142.  PMid:20514149  PMCid:PMC2877522     
  35. Yang SY and Sternberg RJ (1997). Taiwanese Chinese people's conceptions of intelligence. Intelligence, 25(1): 21-36.