Investigating the validity of intelligence testing.docx

Frontiers in Psychology

Intelligence is considered the strongest single predictor of scholastic achievement. However, little is known regarding the predictive validity of well-established intelligence tests for school grades. We analyzed the predictive validity of four widely used intelligence tests in German-speaking countries: The Intelligence and Development Scales (IDS), the Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales (RIAS), the Snijders-Oomen Nonverbal Intelligence Test (SON-R 6-40), and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-IV), which were individually administered to 103 children (M age = 9.17 years) enrolled in regular school. School grades were collected longitudinally after 3 years (averaged school grades, mathematics, and language) and were available for 54 children (M age = 11.77 years). All four tests significantly predicted averaged school grades. Furthermore, the IDS and the RIAS predicted both mathematics and language, while the SON-R 6-40 predicted mathematics. The WISC-IV showed no significant association with longitudinal scholastic achievement when mathematics and language were analyzed separately. The results revealed the predictive validity of currently used intelligence tests for longitudinal scholastic achievement in German-speaking countries and support their use in psychological practice, in particular for predicting averaged school grades. However, this conclusion has to be considered as preliminary due to the small sample of children observed.

American Psychologist, 1997

A large number of new or revamped individually administered intelligence tests have been published in the past 2 decades. This article begins by describing the development status of 3 categories of intelligence tests: psychometric-ability instruments, neuropsychologically based instruments, and dynamic assessments, with particular attention to issues that require additional research. It then considers how these categories of tests lend themselves to educational applications. Finally, the article describes recent basic and applied research findings that may influence how intelligence tests continue to evolve. The present scene in intelligence testing is essentially one of stagnation, with much talk but little progress. (Carroll, 1978, p. 93)

Handbook of Intelligence

t'l'l •• Ufll lit", I '11'1 t III "I '"'''' 1-. ~"'-' '•'~I ~.I!tl. "'" ' 11. •~f.)I". ''' lql ~ III .IIl, ~ II'~IR II r h~I ' I'~ III '11I'-)l,IM "If~fl It. ~I IJ~WI"'f ~,'~I'i ' 'I :, ~ Il4ft l • 1 iII III lill1ll""1 I ft.l\t' 11 ~II 11 "'l •• ", '" " •"W '•I'~ JI Itll" ' ")' .... tllfl"'~1

2004

At all levels of education, there is great concern about the low performance of racially and linguistically diverse students-African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Native Americans-on standardized tests, as well as their under-representation in gifted education. While fewer concerns and criticisms target achievement tests, a wealth of controversy surrounds intelligence tests (also known as cognitive ability tests), specifically given the consistently lower performance of Black students on intelligence tests compared to White students. More so than with achievement tests, intelligence tests carry the burden of being associated with innate ability, particularly by laypersons and those unfamiliar with the purposes and limitations of tests; thus, to those unfamiliar with the purposes and limitations of tests, when one group performs lower than another group, the results, they believe, may be attributed to heredity or genetic inferiority. This simplistic explanation ignores the role of environment, including education and opportunity to learn, on students' test performance. Issues regarding achievement tests and diverse students are less controversial than those regarding intelligence tests. Compared to intelligence tests, few publications have been written regarding biases in achievement tests. Performance on achievement tests is generally associated with the quality and quantity of students' educational or learning experiences at home and school. For the most part, low achievement test scores are associated with poor educational experiences, lack of motivation, and a host of other factors that tend to be environmental or social rather than inherited or genetic. Conversely, some people presume that intelligence tests measure unlearned abilitiesabilities less dependent on instruction and education-and they interpret low performance on intelligence tests with low cognitive ability and potential. This belief is particularly relevant among: (a) individuals who are untrained in testing and assessment; (b) individuals who believe that intelligence is fixed, innate, and unchangeable, and (c) individuals who believe that intelligence tests are comprehensive, exact, and precise measures of intelligence (see discussion in , 2003). Whatever position one holds regarding the nature of intelligence (and achievement) as measured by tests, these tests: (a) measure only a sample of the construct being measured; (b) measure present behavior, namely students' attainment of skills at the time of assessment; and (c) intelligence test scores are an estimate of a person's current level of functioning as measured by the various tasks required. Attempts to develop an accurate definition and measure of "intelligence" have been fraught with difficulty and controversy. Nowhere are the debates and controversies

Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 2009

There is no more central topic in psychology than intelligence and intelligence testing. With a history as long as psychology itself, intelligence is the most studied and likely the best understood construct in psychology, albeit still with many "unknowns." The psychometric sophistication employed in creating intelligence tests is at the highest level. The authors provide an overview of the history, theory, and assessment of intelligence. Five questions are proposed and discussed that focus on key areas of confusion or misunderstanding associated with the measurement and assessment of intelligence.

Cross-Cultural Research, 1999

Netherlands. A Dutch test, the Revisie Amsterdamse Kinder Intelligentie Test (RAKIT), was adapted to the Indian situation (Indian Child Intelligence Test [ICIT]). Using the ICIT and the RAKIT, 612 Indian children and 1,007 Dutch children were tested, respectively. The average test scores for the ICIT group were lower in a number of subtests; however, coefficients of internal consistency and stability for the ICIT and RAKIT were satisfactory, varying from 0.84 to 0.94. Results of a factor analysis showed that both test batteries have a clear psychometric equivalence, making comparable test interpretations possible. Predictive validities for ICIT and RAKIT were high (0.56 and 0.48, respectively), with reading ability as a criterion.

Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 2004

This article presents a review of cross-cultural influences on Wechsler IQ tests, together with a preliminary investigation into WAIS-III test performance (English administration) for a southern African sample (age range 19–30) stratified for white English first language and black African first language, level and quality of education. (‘African language’ is the term used to denote the indigenous languages of black populations in southern Africa). A two-way ANOVA revealed highly significant effects for both level and quality of education within the black African first language group. Scores for the white English and black African first language groups with advantaged education were comparable with the US standardization, whereas scores for black African first language participants with disadvantaged education were significantly lower than this. Thus indications from this research are that normative studies should take account of the influential variable of quality of education, in addition to level of education. Alternatively faulty conclusions may be drawn about the effects of ethnicity, with the potential for neuropsychological misdiagnosis.

1999

This paper reviews what is known about intelligence and the use of intelligence tests. Environmental and hereditary factors that affect performance on intelligence tests are reviewed, along with various theories that have been proposed about the basis of intelligence. Intelligence tests do not test intelligence per se but make inferences about a person's intelligence. Intelligence tests contain some measurement errors, and no single intelligence quotient (IQ) test or theory is uniformly accepted as the "best." It is suggested that the best way to test intelligence is to use a reliable battery of tests or combination of tests with many subcategories. These subcategories should reflect a wide range of abilities, processes, and contexts. In addition, the results of tests should be reported in a clear and analytical way. These reports should guide teachers and parents in helping each individual student in the most appropriate way. (Contains 3 figures, 3 tables, and 30 references.) (SLD) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document.

School Psychology Quarterly, 2009

and the Wide Range Intelligence Test (WRIT; are two well-normed brief measures of general intelligence with subtests purportedly assessing verbal-crystallized abilities and nonverbal-fluid-visual abilities. With a sample of 152 children, adolescents, and adults, the present study reports meaningful convergent validity coefficients and a latent factor structure consistent with the theoretical intellectual models both tests were constructed to reflect. Consideration of the hierarchical model of intelligence tests and issues regarding test interpretation are presented. are now certified school psychologists in Illinois and Arizona, respectively.

Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 2009

Brief assessments of general cognitive ability are frequently needed by neuropsychologists, and many methods of estimating intelligence quotient (IQ) have been published. While these measures typically present overall correlations with the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) Full Scale IQ, it is tacitly acknowledged that these estimates are most accurate within 1 standard deviation of the mean and that accuracy diminishes moving toward the tails of the IQ distribution. However, little work has been done to systematically characterize proxy measures at the tails of the IQ distribution. Additionally, while these measures are all correlated with the WAIS, multiple proxy measures are rarely presented in one manuscript. The current article has two goals: (1) Examine various IQ proxies against Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (Third Version) scores, showing the overall accuracy of each measure against the gold standard IQ measure. This comparison will assist in selecting the best proxy measure for particular clinical constraints.