Within the field of school psychology, the currently accepted structure of intelligence is the Cattell-Horn-Carroll Model (CHC). The CHC model contains three strata of abilities: a general ability (g), multiple broad cognitive abilities, and several narrow abilities (Schneider & McGrew, 2018), although the theoretical salience of the g factor is contested. Simultaneously, school psychologists are starting to shift the loci of their cognitive assessment interpretation from the general ability to broad abilities (Benson et al., 2019). This change in assessment focus has brought increased scrutiny regarding the technical adequacy of cognitive assessments to be interpreted in this manner (Canivez & Youngstrom, 2019), with those on separate sides of the g debate (i.e., the theoretical salience of the general factor) arriving at differing conclusions due to the use of different modeling techniques. The goal of this study was to examine the underlying factor structure and technical adequacy of one CHC-based instrument, the Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Cognitive Abilities (WJ IV COG; Schneider et al., 2014). This study also observed the stability of this structure over the period of a typical psychoeducational reevaluation and aimed to consider both perspectives in the g debate. Results from exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses supported the existence of four broad ability factors within the WJ IV COG: Processing Speed, Verbal Comprehension, Perceptual Reasoning, and General Memory. Confirmatory methods favored a correlated factors explanation of the general ability. While all four factors met minimum criteria for reliability, only Processing Speed and Verbal Comprehension met standards for construct replicability and mirrored closely their existence within the CHC model and current WJ IV COG interpretive output. Thus, it is recommended that practitioners are selective in the broad abilities they choose to interpret. Due to the analytic procedures utilized within this current study, definitive support towards a psychometric or psychological g cannot be provided. Future research should focus on the use of strong theory to resolve this debate. Understanding the data-generating mechanism will be directly useful to practitioners who aim to explain and treat learning disorders. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://bibliotheek.ehb.be:2222/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]