Iq test measures what kind of intelligence

He also runs the College Learning Assessment Service in which students and adults from the community can learn about their cognitive and academic strengths and weaknesses. His primary research interests lie in evaluating psychological evaluations. He is also interested in helping clinicians use statistical tools to improve case conceptualization and diagnostic decisions. Schneider writes Assessing Psyche , one of my favorite blogs on IQ testing and assessment. I was delighted when he agreed to do an interview with me.

At the individual level, most people define intelligence in their own image. Engineers define it in ways that describe a good engineer. Artists define it in ways that describe a great artist.

Scientists, entrepreneurs, and athletes all do likewise. My definition would probably describe a good academic psychologist. There is considerable diversity in these definitions but also considerable overlap. It is the redundancy in the definitions that justifies the use of the folk term intelligence. However, the inconsistencies in the various definitions are real and thus require that the term intelligence remain ambiguous so that it meets the needs of the folk who use it.

In describing intelligence as a folk concept , I do not mean that it is a primitive idea in need of an upgrade. Many folk concepts are incredibly nuanced and sophisticated. They do not need to be translated into formal scientific concepts any more than folk songs need to be rewritten as operas. Of course, just as folk melodies have been used in operas, folk concepts and formal scientific concepts can inform one another—but they do not always need to.

For this reason I want to dispense with the trope that there is something fishy about the subdiscipline of intelligence research because groups of psychologists persistently disagree on the definition of intelligence. They do not need to agree, and we should not expect them to. If they did happen to agree, the particular definition they agreed upon would be an arbitrary choice and would be non-binding on any other psychologist or anyone else. That is the nature of folk concepts; their meanings are determined flexibly, conveniently, and collectively by the folk who use them—and folk can change their minds.

Further, to say that something is a folk concept does not mean that it is not real or that it is not important; many of the words we use to describe people— polite , cool , greedy , dignified , athletic , and so forth—refer to folk concepts that most of us consider to be very real and quite important. Intelligence, too, is very real, and quite important! In fact, it is important by definition—we use the word to describe people who are able to acquire useful knowledge, and who can solve consequential problems using some combination of logic, intuition, creativity, experience, and wisdom.

See what I just did there? I tried to define intelligence with a bunch of terms that are just as vague as the thing I am trying to define. Of course, terms like useful knowledge and consequential problems are abstractions that take on specific meanings only in specific cultural contexts. If you and I have a shared understanding of all those vague terms, though, we understand each other. If we are of the same folk, our folk concepts convey useful information.

To say that a phenomenon is culturally bound does not imply that the phenomenon can mean anything at all or that it floats free of biology and physics. Even though the meaning of athletic varies depending on context, its meaning is still constrained to refer to skills in physical activities such as sports. Just because athleticism is a folk concept, it does not mean that it has no biological determinants.

It just means that there will never be a single list of biological determinants of athleticism that apply to everyone to the same degree in all situations. However, some biological determinants will be on almost every list. Useful scientific research on what determines athletic skill is quite possible. So it is with intelligence. It is a concept that has meaning only at the intersection of person, situation, and culture; yet its meaning is stable enough that it can be measured in individuals and that useful theories about it can be constructed.

But this objection does not seem to me pertinent…. We measure electro-motive force without knowing what electricity is, and we diagnose with very delicate test methods many diseases the real nature of which we know as yet very little p.

There is no need to shoehorn scientific concepts into folk concepts like intelligence. As the science of cognitive abilities progresses, the folk concept of intelligence will change, as it is in the nature of folk concepts to do. Witness how effective Howard Gardner has been in adjusting and expanding the meaning of intelligence.

Far more important than soliciting agreement among scholars on definitions is to encourage creative researchers to do their work well, approaching the topic from diverse viewpoints. Someday much later we can sort out what a consensus definition of intelligence might be if that ever seems like a good idea.

For over a century, though, there has been no looming crisis over the lack of consensus on the meaning of intelligence. There may never be one. The value of IQ tests is determined more by what they correlate with than what they measure. IQ tests did not begin as operational definitions of theories that happened to correlate with important outcomes.

The reason that IQ tests correlate with so many important outcomes is that they have undergone a long process akin to natural selection. The fastest way to disabuse oneself of the belief that Binet invented the first intelligence test is to read the works of Binet himself—he even shows you the test items he copied from scholars who came before him!

With each new test and each test revision, good test items are retained and bad test items are dropped. Good test items have high correlations with important outcomes in every population for which the test is intended to be used. Bad items correlate with nothing but other test items. Some test items must be discarded because they have substantially different correlations with outcomes across demographic subgroups, causing the tests to be biased in favor of some groups at the expense of other groups.

However, we typically do not see the tests that fail, many of which are very much theory-based. So we have successful tests and we have the ideas of successful test developers. Those ideas are likely to be approximately correct, but we do not yet have a strong theory of the cognitive processes that occur while taking IQ tests.

There are, of course, many excellent studies that attempt to describe and explain what processes are involved in IQ test performance. Although this literature is large and sophisticated, I believe that we are still at the beginning stages of theory validation work. A crude description of what a good IQ test should measure might be as follows.

People need to be able learn new information. One way to estimate learning ability is to teach a person new information and measure knowledge retention. This works well for simple information e. Learning ability can be estimated indirectly by measuring how much a person has learned in the past.

If our purpose is to measure raw learning ability, this method is poor because learning ability is confounded by learning opportunities, cultural differences, familial differences, and personality differences in conscientiousness and openness to learning. However, if the purpose of the IQ score is to forecast future learning, it is hard to do better than measures of past learning. Knowledge tests are among the most robust predictors of performance that we have.

Our society at this time in history values the ability to make generalizations from incomplete data and to deduce new information from abstract rules. IQ tests need to measure this ability to engage in abstract reasoning in ways that minimize the advantage of having prior knowledge of the content domain.

Good IQ tests should measure aspects of visual-spatial processing and auditory processing, as well as short-term memory, and processing speed.

IQ is an imperfect predictor of many outcomes. A person who scores very low on a competently administered IQ test is likely to struggle in many domains. However, an IQ score will miss the mark in many individuals, in both directions. Should we be angry at the IQ test when it misses the mark? All psychological measures are rubber rulers. It is in their nature to miss the mark from time to time. If the score was wrong because of incompetence, we should be angry at incompetent test administrators.

We should be angry at institutions that use IQ tests to justify oppression. This misapplication of intelligence testing is considered unethical, because it provides a measure for discriminating against fully qualified individuals. Again, even if intelligence scores correlate with job success, this does not mean that people with high intelligence will always be successful at work.

Another criticism points out that standardized tests that actually measure specific skills are misinterpreted as measures of intelligence. Researchers examined the correlation between the SAT exam and two other tests of intelligence and found a strong relationship between the results.

They concluded that the SAT is primarily a test of g or general intelligence. However, correlational studies provide information about a relationship, not about causation. Critics of standardized tests also point to problems associated with using the SAT and ACT exams to predict college success. Predicting college success is most reliable when a combination of factors is considered, rather than a single standardized test score.

A similar controversy surrounding the use of intelligence tests surrounds whether or not these tests are biased such that certain groups have an advantage over other groups. Questions of bias raise similar questions to the questions around whether intelligence tests should be used to predict social outcomes. For example, the relationship between wealth and IQ is well-documented. Could this mean that IQ tests are biased toward wealthy individuals?

Or does the relationship go the other way? If there are statistically significant group differences in IQ, whether based on race, gender, socioeconomic status, age, or any other division, it is important to take a look at the intelligence test in question to make sure that there are no differences in testing method that give one group an advantage over others along any dimension other than intelligence.

Additionally, IQ cannot be said to describe or measure all possible cultural representations of intelligence. Various cultures value different types of mental abilities based on their cultural history, and the IQ test is a highly westernized construct.

As such, IQ tests are also criticized for assessing only those particular areas emphasized in the western conceptualization of intelligence, such as problem-solving, and failing to account for other areas such as creativity or emotional intelligence. IQ tests are often criticized for being culturally biased. A study stated that IQ tests may contain cultural influences that reduce their validity as a measure of cognitive ability for Mexican-American students, indicating a weaker positive correlation relative to sampled white American students.

Other recent studies have questioned the culture-fairness of IQ tests when used in South Africa. Standard intelligence tests, such as the Stanford-Binet, are often inappropriate for children with autism, and may have resulted in incorrect claims that a majority of children with autism are mentally retarded. Privacy Policy. Skip to main content. Search for:. Measuring Intelligence. History of Intelligence Testing Intelligence testing has evolved over time as researchers continually seek the best method for measuring intelligence.

Learning Objectives Trace the history of intelligence testing. Key Takeaways Key Points The Wechsler scales were the first intelligence scales to base scores on a standardized normal distribution.

The Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale formed the basis for one of the modern intelligence tests that remains in common use. Critics claim that environmental factors, such as quality of education and school systems, lead to cultural discrepancies in test scores. Key Terms intelligence quotient : A score derived from one of several different standardized tests attempting to measure intelligence. IQ Tests IQ tests are used to measure human intelligence quotient as measured against an age-based average intelligence score.

Learning Objectives Explain how IQ scores are measured on a normal curve. It is more likely, however, that environmental factors contribute to both IQ scores and to outcomes in life.

Current IQ tests measure personal scores based on standard deviations from a well-established average, and are thought to be relatively stable over time. IQ tests are psychometric and person-centric tests that are statistically reliable and valid, but do not necessarily represent the same type of intelligence across cultures.

IQ tests are often criticized for being biased, and for only measuring one aspect of intelligence. Key Terms reliability : A measure of whether the results of a test are consistent and repeatable. Standardized Tests Standardized tests are identical exams always administered in the same way so as to be able to compare outcomes across all test-takers. Learning Objectives Describe the strengths and limitations of standardized tests.

Key Takeaways Key Points A standardized test is any exam that is always administered the same way and that is scored consistently according to a set of standards. Types of standardized test include achievement tests, diagnostic tests, and aptitude tests. Standardized tests evaluate performance either against a particular criterion or against the performance of others. Although daydreaming may seem like a waste of time to outsiders, it can have major benefits for the person doing it.

When engaged in some task, such as learning, people want to keep at it, Kaufman explains. That means they will push forward, long after they might otherwise have been expected to give up. Engagement also lets a person switch between focused attention and mind wandering. That daydreaming state can be an important part of intelligence. While daydreaming, a so-called default mode network within the brain kicks into action.

Its nerve cells are active when the brain is at rest. For a long time, psychologists thought the default mode network was active only when the executive control network rested.

In other words, you could not focus on an activity and daydream at the same time. To see if that was really true, last year Kaufman teamed up with researchers at the University of North Carolina in Greensboro and at the University of Graz in Austria. They scanned the brains of volunteers using functional magnetic resonance imaging , or fMRI.

This tool uses a strong magnetic field to record brain activity. As they scanned the brains of 25 college students, the researchers asked the students to think of as many creative uses as they could for everyday objects. And as students were being as creative as possible, parts of both the default mode network and the executive control network lit up.

Rather, Kaufman suspects, the two networks work together to make creativity possible. And he thinks it is essential for problem-solving. She works at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. Like many other psychologists, Duckworth wondered what makes one person more successful than another. In , she interviewed people from all walks of life.

She asked each what they thought made someone successful. Most people believed intelligence and talent were important. When Duckworth dug deeper, she found that the people who performed best — those who were promoted over and over, or made a lot of money — shared a trait independent of intelligence. They had what she now calls grit.

Grit has two parts: passion and perseverance. Passion points to a lasting interest in something. People who persevere work through challenges to finish a project. Duckworth developed a set of questions to assess passion and perseverance. In one study of people 25 and older, she found that as people age, they become more likely to stick with a project.

She also found that grit increases with education. People who had finished college scored higher on the grit scale than did people who quit before graduation. People who went to graduate school after college scored even higher. She then did another study with college students. Duckworth wanted to see how intelligence and grit affected performance in school. Students with higher grades tended to have more grit. Getting good grades takes both smarts and hard work. On average, students with higher exam scores tended to be less gritty than those who scored lower.

He recently pooled the results of 88 studies on grit.