Intelligence Flashcards
Binet definition of Intelligence:
“the tendency to take and maintain a definite direction; the capacity to make adaptations for the purpose of attaining a desired end, and the power of autocriticism”
Spearman:
ability to deduce either relations or correlates
Freeman:
intelligence is “adjustment or adaptation of the individual to his total environment,” “the ability to learn,” and “the ability to carry on abstract thinking”
Das
the ability to plan and structure one’s behavior with an end in view
Gardner:
defined intelligence in terms of the ability “to resolve genuine problems or difficulties as they are encountered”
Sternberg:
defined intelligence in terms of “mental activities involved in purposive adaptation to, shaping of, and selection of real-world environments relevant to one’s life”
Anderson:
intelligence is two-dimensional and based on individual differences in information-processing speed and executive functioning influenced largely by inhibitory processes
Intelligence is a construct
What makes a person intelligent - smart, solve problems, good memory, learn quickly
Intellectual skills vs. physical skills
What should it predict
Taylor identified three independent research traditions that have been employed to study the nature of human intelligence:
1 - the psychometric
examines the elemental structure of a test
2 - the information processing
examine the processes that underlie how we learn and solve problems
3 - the cognitive approaches
focuses on how humans adapt to real-world demands
The Problem of Defining Intelligence
A test such as the Binet that examines one’s ability to define words and identify numerical sequences certainly does not meet the standards of all or even most definitions of intelligence.
There is a correlation between socioeconomic background and scores on all standardized intelligence tests - including Stanford-Binet
many people have charged that intelligence tests are biased, especially against ethnic minorities, the poor (Hays, 2001), and non-native speakers
Ironically, intelligence tests were initially developed to eliminate subjectivity in the evaluation of children’s ability.
Proponents hold that properly used intelligence tests provide an objective standard of competence and potential
Critics charge that intelligence tests are biased - not only against certain racial and economic groups but also used by those in power to maintain the status quo
1904 - French minister officially appointed a commission with an assignment
Assignment - : to recommend a procedure for identifying so-called subnormal (intellectually limited) children.
Binet - demonstrated his qualification by his earlier research on human abilities
Binet on defining intelligence
Study by Wissler - simple functions such as reaction time and sensory acuity failed to discriminate well among individuals of high and low scholastic ability
As a result - Binet looked for complex processes in his struggle to understand human intelligence
First problem for Binet was to define intelligence
Principles of Test Construction
Binet defined intelligence as the capacity:
1 - Find and maintain a definite direction or purpose
2 - To make necessary adaptations - strategy adjustments - to achieve that purpose
3 - To engage in self-criticism so that necessary adjustments in strategy can be made
Still problem of deciding what he wanted to measure
Concentrate on tasks related to judgmental, attention and reasoning facilities of the individual
Used trial and error, experimentation and hypothesis testing procedures
Guided by two major concepts - that underlie not only the binet scale but also major modern theories of intelligence: age differentiation and general mental ability
Principle 1 - Age DIfferentiation
refers to the simple fact that one can differentiate older children from younger children by the former’s greater capabilities
For example, whereas most 9-year-olds can tell that a quarter is worth more than a dime, a dime is worth more than a nickel, and so on, most 4-year-olds cannot
Binet looked for tasks that could be completed by 66-75 percent of the children of a particular age group and also by a smaller proportion of younger children but a larger proportion of older
Estimate the mental ability of a child regardless of chronological age = mental age
Principle 2 - General Mental Ability
Measure only the total product of the various separate and distinct elements of intelligence = general mental ability
Freed himelf from identifying each element or independent aspect of intelligence - also freed from finding the relation of each element to the whole
Decision to measure general mental ability was based on practical considerations
Judge the value of any particular task in terms of its correlation with the combined result (total score) of all other tasks
Tasks with low correlations could be eliminated and tasks with high correlations retained
General mental ability is critical to understanding modern conceptions of human intelligence as well as the various editions of the BInet
Galton -
notion of a general mental ability factor underlying all intelligent behavior
Spearman -
intelligence consists of one general factor - g - plus a large number of specific factors
Numerical reasoning, vocabulary, mechanical skill
Notion of a general mental ability -
psychometric g - based on the well-documented phenomenon that when a set of diverse ability tests are administered to large unbiased samples of the population- almost all of the correlations are positive
Positive manifold - according to Spearman - resulted from the fact that all tests, no matter how diverse are influenced by g
For spearman - g best conceptualized in terms of mental energy
Spearman - factor analysis
One can determine how much variance a set of tests or scores has in common
Common variance represents the g factor - g in a factor analysis of any set of mental ability tasks can be represented in the first unrotated factor in a principal components analysis
As a general rule - approx half of the variance in a set of diverse mental ability tests is represented in the g factor
Today spearman’s g is the most established and ubiquitous predictor of occupational and educational performance
Implications of General Mental Intelligence -g
Concept of general mental intelligence can best be represented by a single score g - that presumably reflects the shared variance underlying performance on a diverse set of tests
True performance on any given individual task can be attributed to g as well as some specific or unique variance
If the set of tasks is large and broad enough the role of any given task can be reduced to a minimum
Differences in unique ability stemming from the specific task tend to cancel each other and overall performance comes to depend most heavily on the general factor
Such reasoning guided the development of the Binet scale as well as all its subsequent revisions through the most current fifth edition
The gf-gc Theory
Recent theories of intelligence have suggested that human intelligence can be best conceptualized in terms of multiple intelligences rather than a single score
Two basic types of intelligence = fluid - f and crystalilized - c
Fluid intelligence: abilities that allow us to reason, think and acquire new knowledge
Crystallized intelligence = knowledge and understanding that we have acquired - stuff that you have actually put in your head using the fluid intelligence
0.5 = r
1905 Binet-Simon Scale
individual intelligence test consisting of 30 items presented in increasing order of difficulty - Recognize food, detect familiar objects, distinguish btw paired abstract items
Binets time - 3 levels of intellectual deficiency - identify intellectually subnormal children
1 - Idiot - most severe form of intellectual impairment. The ability to follow simple directions and imitate simple gestures was the upper limit of adult idiots - item 6
Ability to identify parts of the body or simple objects - item 8 - rule our most severe impairment
2 - Imbecile - moderate impairment
Upper limit was 16
3 - Moron - most moderate level
SOLVED:
Determined exactly what he wanted to measure
Developed items for this purpose
CONS:
Lacked an adequate measurement unit
Lacked normative data and evidence to support validity - 50 kids standardization sample
1905 Binet-Simon Scale - Fell short:
Lacked an adequate measuring unit to express results
Lacked normative data and evidence to support its validity
The classifications Binet used can hardly be considered sufficient for expressing results - little had been done to document the scales validity
Norms were based on only 50 children who had been considered normal based on average school performance
1908 Scale
Retained the principle of age differentiation
1908 scale was an age scale - items were grouped according to age level rather than simply on set of items of increasing difficulty as in the 1905 scale
Provided a model for innumerable tests still used in educational and clinical settings
1908 Scale - Challenges
- When items are grouped according to age level, comparing a child’s performance on different kinds of tasks is difficult if not impossible unless items are exquisitely balanced as in the 5th edition
—- Current edition allows test users to combine all verbal items into a single scale and all nonverbal items into a single scale - to overcome problems with age scale format - Scale produced one score almost exclusively related to verbal, language and reading ability
Binet claimed a single score was consistent with the notion of general mental ability and therefore appropriate
Made little effort to diversify the range of abilities tapped - heavily weighted on language, reading and verbal skills at the expense of other factors such as the integration of visual and motor functioning
Problems were not addressed until the 1986
Main improvement in 1908 scale - introduction of mental age and age scale format
Solve the problem of expressing the results in adequate units
Mental age was based on their performance compared with average performance of individuals in specific chronological age group
Mental age eventually abandoned and age scale format modified
Terman’s Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale
1916 - Terman - flourished and served for some time as the dominant intelligence scale for the world
Retained: age differentiation, general mental ability, age scale, mental age
Increased the size of the standardization sample - however consisted exclusively of white native-californian children - geographic location can affect test performance - cant even be generalized to represent white americans
Terman’s Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale - Intelligence Quotient
IQ concept- used a subject mental age in conjunction with their chronological age to obtain a ratio score which presumably reflected the subjects rate of mental development
- Determine chronological age
- Determine mental age using the scale
- IQ, chronological age divided into the mental age and x100
When mental age is less than chronological age, IQ under 100
The IQ score altered the nature of the measuring unit used to express the results. - may have actually been a step backward; the MA/CA method of calculating IQ scores was ultimately abandoned in all major tests.
1916 scale had a maximum possible mental age of 19.5 years - if every group of items was passed - result.
Given this limitation, anyone older than 19.5 would have an IQ of less than 100 even if all items were passed. Therefore, a maximum limit on the chronological age had to be set. Because back in 1916 people believed that mental age ceased to improve after 16 years of age, 16 was used as the maximum chronological age
1937 Scale
EXTENDED AGE RANGE to 2 yr olds - increased possible mental age to 22 yrs 10m by adding new tasks
SCORING STANDARDS and instructions were improved to reduce ambiguities, enhance standardization of administration and increase interscorer reliability
Several performance items - copy designs - decrease emphasis on verbal skills
STANDARDIZATION SAMPLE improved - came from 11 US states, variety of regions - selected according to father’s occupations - increased - only white people and more urban
Inclusion of an alternate equivalent form - psychometric properties could be examined
1937 Scale - Problems
Reliability coefficients were higher for older subjects than for younger ones
Reliability figures also varied as a function of IQ - higher reliabilities in lower IQ ranges and poorer in higher ranges
Lowest reliabilities occurred in the youngest age groups in the highest IQ ranges
Each age group in standardization sample produced a unique SD of IQ scores
Discrepancies - IQs at one age level were not equivalent to IQs at another
1960 Stanford-Binet Revision and Deviation IQ (SB-LM)
Developers of the 1960 revision tried to create a single instrument by selecting the best form from the 2 forms of the 1937 scale
Tasks that showed an increase in the percentage passing with an increase in age - main criterion and guiding principle - received the highest priority as did tasks that correlated highly with scores as a whole - second guiding principle
1960 Stanford-Binet Revision and Deviation IQ (SB-LM) - deviation IQ
Deviation IQ - was simply a standard score with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 16 (today the standard deviation is set at 15).
the deviation IQ was ascertained by evaluating the standard deviation of mental age for a representative sample at each age level.
New IQ tables were then constructed that corrected for differences in variability at the various age levels.
By correcting for these differences in variability, one could compare the IQs of one age level with those of another.
Thus, scores could be interpreted in terms of standard deviations and percentiles with the assurance that IQ scores for every age group corresponded to the same percentile
Today- deviation IQ method is considered the most precise way of expressing the results of an intelligence test.
1960s revision did not include
a new normative sample or restandardization
by 1972, a new standardization group
consisting of a representative sample of 2100 children (approximately 100 at each Stanford-Binet age level) had been obtained for use with the 1960 revision - included nonwhites. For many, however, the general improvements in the 1960 revision, even with the new 1972 norms, did not suffice
The Modern Binet Scale - g three group factors
Model for 4th and 5th Eds of the Binet Scale
Model for the latest editions of the Binet is far more elaborate than the spearman model that best characterized the original versions of the scale
Incorporate the gf-gc theory of intelligence - based on a hierarchical model
Top of the hierarchy is g - reflects common variability of all tasks
3 group factors -
- Crystallized abilities: reflect learning - realization of potential through experience
- Fluid analytic abilities represent original potential or the basic capabilities that a person uses to acquire crystallized abilities
- Short-term memory - refers to ones memory during short intervals - the amount of info one can retain briefly after a single short presentation
Crystalized ability has two subcategories - verbal reasoning and nonverbal reasoning
The Role of Thurstone’s Multidimensional Model
Binets test attempts to evaluate g in the context of a multidimensional model of intelligence
Thurstone argued contrary to Spearmans single process idea - intelligence could be best conceptualized as comprising independent factors or primary mental abilities
Instead of viewing all specific abilities as being powered by a g factor - some groups of abilities were seen as independent
Group abilities were seen as broad capabilities that were independent of each other rather than each being the result of a single underlying factor.
Years of painstaking work ultimately revealed evidence for group abilities factors that were relatively, but not totally, independent.
group factors were correlated, and from them a g factor could be extracted, as in the hierarchical model of the fourth and fifth editions of the Binet. The bottom line is that so far all roads point to a single factor correlated with abilities of all types. However, as will be seen, certain skills group together more strongly with so-called group abilities, such as verbal group ability and nonverbal group ability.
Characteristics of the 1986 Revision
attempted to retain all of the strengths of the earlier revisions while eliminating the weaknesses
To continue to provide a measure of general mental ability, the authors of the 1986 revision decided to retain the wide variety of content and task characteristics of earlier versions.
to avoid having this wide content unevenly distributed across age groups, the age scale format was entirely eliminated, which as you recall grouped items according to age level so that the test starts and stops at an age-appropriate level.
In place of the age scale, items with the same content were placed together into any one of 15 separate tests to create point scales. For example, all vocabulary items were placed together in one test
see how many points one obtained in the vocabulary arena and how many points one obtained in solving matrix problems.
Modern 2003 fifth edition provided a standardized hierarchical model with 5 factors
Top of hierarchy is general intelligence
Now 5 rather than 4 main factors - each factor has an equally weighted nonverbal and verbal measure
Fluid reasoning
Knowledge
Quantitative reasoning
Visual/Spatial reasoning
Working memory
—all with verbal and nonverbal subscales
Scaled scores for each subtest - mean of 10 and sd of 3
Nonverbal iq score - mean 100 deviation 15
Full scale IQ - same
Verbal IQ same
Characteristics of the 2003 5th Ed.
represents an elegant integration of the age-scale and point-scale formats
- the nonverbal and verbal scales are equally weighted.
—–test examination process begins with one of two “routing measures” (subtests): one nonverbal, one verbal. The routing tests are organized in a point scale, which means that each contains items of similar content and of increasing difficulty.
purpose of the routing tests is to estimate the examinee’s level of ability in order to guide the examination process by estimating the level of ability at which to begin testing for any given subject - difference with the 2003 fifth edition is that because of the equal weighting of verbal and nonverbal items, it is possible to summarize an examinee’s score on all items of similar content.
As a result, the fifth edition retains the advantage of the point scale by allowing examiners to summarize scores within any given content area while also using a mixture of tasks to maintain an examinee’s interest.
start point.
estimated level of ability
basal
level at which a minimum criterion number of correct responses is obtained
ceiling
Testing continues until examinees reach the ceiling, which is a certain number of incorrect responses that indicate the items are too difficult.
Psychometric Properties of the 2003 5th Ed.
Sd of 15
A major goal of the fifth edition is to tap the extremes in intelligence— the major historical strength of the Binet that had been essentially lost in the fourth edition. The age range touted by the fifth edition spans from 2 to 851 years of age.
The range of possible scores runs from a low of 40 to a high of 160, reestablishing the Binet as one of the most appropriate tests for evaluating extremes in intelligence
the reliability of the fifth edition is quite good.
results from more recent independent studies have seriously challenged the claim that the fifth edition measures five factors
Median Validity
The technical manual reports four types of evidence that support the validity of the test:
(1) content validity,
(2) construct validity,
(3) empirical item analysis, and
(4) considerable criterion-related evidence of validity
Sternberg - what is intelligence asking lay people survey
Practical problem-solving ability
Reasons logically and well
Identifies connections among ideas
Sees all aspects of a problem
Keeps an open mind
Sternberg - what is intelligence asking lay people survey factor analysis
Social Competence
Accepts others for what they are
Admits mistakes
Displays interest in the world at large
Is on time for appointments
Sternberg - what is intelligence asking lay people survey factor analysis
Verbal intelligence
Displays a good vocabulary
Reads with high comprehension
Displays curiosity
Is intellectually curious
Sternberg - what is intelligence asking lay people survey factor analysis
Problem solving ability
Able to apply knowledge to problems at hand
Makes good decisions
Poses problems in an optimal way
Displays common sense
Sternberg - what is intelligence asking lay people survey factor analysis
practical intelligence
Sizes up situations well
Determines how to achieve goals
Displays awareness to world
Displays interest in the world at large
Theories of intelligence - Galton and Cattell
Intelligence is underwritten by keen sensory abilities - measure sensory processes to measure intelligence
—- not very useful except some current reaction time-movement time tests
Spearmans g factor
general mental ability - g = mental energy
General positive manifold - when you look at correlations for people - bunch of different tests - when you give to whole population - everything correlates positive with each other
all kinds of intellectual tasks positively correlate with each other
Factor analysis crucial to define this
- first factor that comes out of factor analysis is g = general mental energy that underlies everything else
Hierarchal Theory
G has numerical reasoning, vocab, mechanical skills = sub tasks
What is the exact profile of intelligence
Spearmans g
50 % of the variance in diverse mental ability tests is accounted for by g
the most established and ubiquitous predictor of occupational and educational performance
Gardners Multiple Intelligences
Linguistic
Logical-mathematical
Spatial
Musical
Bodily-kinesthetic
Interpersonal
Intrapersonal
Naturalistic, spiritual, existential
— meant to be realatively independent from eachother
- taken off in education
little empirical evidence for validity
Sternberg - Triarchic theory of intelligence
- Componential Intelligence (analytic)
- internal mechanisms responsible for intelligent behavior
- metacomponents/executive processes (planning)
- performance components - syllogistic reasoning
- knowledge-acquisition components eg. ability to acquire vocabulary words
Sternberg - Triarchic theory of intelligence
- Experiential (Creative) Intelligence
Ability to deal with novelty
Ability to automatize information processing
Sternberg - Triarchic theory of intelligence
- Contextual (Practical) Intelligence
Adaptation to real-world environment
Selection of a suitable envrionment
Shaping of the environment
what idea did sternberg try to capture?
what was his biggest point
there are components not measured by traditional IQ tests
biggest point is that there is a practical intelligence separate from academic intelligence - g
Criticism by psychometrists limited validity evidence
what idea did sternberg try to capture?
what was his biggest point
there are components not measured by traditional IQ tests
biggest point is that there is a practical intelligence separate from academic intelligence - g
Criticism by psychometrists limited validity evidence
What do IQ scores correlate with - Neisser
School scores r = 0.5
years of education r= .55
Parental ses r = 0.33
social status r = 0.55
Income r = 0.4
job performance r = 0.3 - r=0.6
juvenile deliquency - r = -0.17
IQ Criticisms
Cultural issues, gender issues
Eugenic issues
Individually limiting
Puzzle
Nature vs. nuture
Racial differences - test or population
How changeable is IQ -
Flynn Effect
Rise in IQ scores
About 3 points per decade (but always renormed at 100, 15)
Test scores increase but are people actually smarter? - yes
