Intelligence Flashcards
Basic History of Intelligence Testing
→ Binet and Simon (1905): the ability to judge well, understand well, reason well
→ Wechsler (1939): aggregate capacity of the individual to act purposefully, to think rationally, and to deal effectively with the environment
→ Linda Gottfredson and others (1997): the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings, making sense of things etc
Historical Figures of Intelligence (Part 1)
Alfred Binet
- Binet Simon Test
Lewis Terman
- Took test to America
- Added idea of giftedness, could classify a high performing group that may then receive additional training
- Gives idea of IQ
- IQ = mental age/chronological age x 100
Charles Spearman
- Argued that intelligence could be measured generally (G) as a composite of more specific (S) intelligences
- G is in the middle
David Wechsler
- Like Binet, he thought that the measures of intelligence won’t truly grasp psychological capability but might be the best quantitative measure possible
Historical Figures of Intelligence (Part 2)
Raymond Cattell
- Difference between fluid and crystallised intelligence rather than G and S measures
- Both increase similarly until the mid 20s until fluid intelligence gradually falls over time
Howard Gardener
- Multiple intelligences (sports, creative)
Robert Sternberh
- Successful and practical intelligence differentiations
Carol Dweck
- Growth mindset (approach learning in a way that will increase in learning capability) vs fixed mindset
Alan and Nadeen Kaufman
- Intelligent testing
- Clinician or assessor need to take into account the broader context of the testing situation
Peter Salovey and John Mayer
- Emotional intelligence
Stanford Binet 5 (SB-5)
Structure
- G factor (full-scale IQ)
Of Verbal or nonverbal IQ
- Fluid reasoning
- Knowledge
- Quantitative reasoning
- Visual/spatial reasoning
- Working memory
Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale IV (WAIS-IV)
Structure
- Full scale IQ (FSIQ)
Verbal IQ
- Verbal comprehension index
- Working memory index
Performance IQ
- Perceptual organisation index
- Processing speed index
Privacy of Intelligence Tests
Contents of these tests are protected to make sure that no one knows the contents of the test before they take it
Scoring of Intelligence Tests
- Standardisation with average = 100 and standard deviation of 15
- 68% between 85-115
Reliability and Validity of Intelligence Testing
- Generally high internal reliability, test retest and interrater reliability
- High concurrent validity - compared with prior tests and other tests
- Varying predictive validity
Controversies with IQ Tests
- Assess only one portion of intelligence, miss multiple intelligences (Gardener’s), emotional intelligence, creative and practical intelligences
- Used in consequential educational, forensic, and employment settings, misuse is a concern
- Used to substantiate claims about genetic differences between groups of people (eugenics) and as the basis of exclusion and maltreatment
Problems with IQ Tests
- Effectively identify children who might benefit from extra education
- Can track efforts to rectify differences in social disadvantaged groups
- Can be used as part of a broader portfolio to select candidates in employment contexts
Test Bias and Cultural Bias of IQ Tests
Controversy of The Bell Curve
- IQ are accurate measures, strong predictors
- IQ is ‘highly heritable’ not influenced by environmental factors
- Racial differences in IQ are due to genetics
- Educational and other interventions have little impact on IQ
IQ differences are significant between african americans and white americans
- Explanations take two forms
- Gene environment interaction
- Differences reflect biased tests
Test Bias of Intelligence Tests
- Important as many assessments determine consequential decisions, bias could disproportionately affect one group more than another
- Related to validity
- Differential validity
- When conclusions are appropriate for one subgroup but not another
How to Assess for Test Bias
Predictive (criterion)
- Results in erroneous inferences about the future performance of a particular group
- Must not also be subjected to similar biases
Construct validity
- How well the test itself measures the subject at hand for members of different groups
- Inconsistency in factor analysis
- Used to analyse interrelationships among a large number of variables
- Explains these variables in terms of their common underlying dimensions
- Inconsistency in rank ordering of difficult items
- Looking at a set of data from an assessment, order the items in terms of their average difficulty
- Inconsistency of convergent/discriminant validity
- Convergent - high correlation between test and other measures it should correlate with
- Divergent - low correlation between test and other measures it should not correlate with
Cultural Bias
- Cognitive assessment methods in clinical practice for aboriginal australians are limited
- Tests themselves were developed outside of indigenous groups
- Clinicians may not be trained in a way to establish these tests to other cultural groups
- Intelligence may be conceptualised differently in other cultures
Luo People in Rural Kenya (Cultural Bias Example)
- Rieko, which largely corresponds to the Western idea of academic intelligence
- Luoro, social qualities like respect
- Paro, practical thinking
- Winjo, comprehension
