Intelligence Testing Flashcards
Defining “intelligence”
Even with varying definitions of intelligence, there is some level of agreement:
- Adaptation to the environment
- Basic mental processes
- Higher-order thinking (e.g. reasoning, problem solving, decision making)
This could include:
* Abstract thinking or reasoning
* Problem solving
* Capacity to acquire knowledge
* Memory
* Cognitive flexibility
* Mental speed
* Linguistic competence
Factor analysis
a method of reducing the number of variables into principal components or “factors”
Simplify the concept - large number of variables into a small number of factors
Dimensionality reduction technique
Ex. personality traits OCEAN
Spearman’s two-factor theory (1927)
Intelligence = general factor (g) + specific factors (s)
- Found a high correlation between several cognitive abilities
- Theorized that a “g” factor might be the overarching
factor connecting them all
S = specific abilities - performance on specific tasks
Thurstone’s Multidimensional Theory (1938)
Intelligence à a composition of many interconnected
but distinct abilities
Identified 7 primary mental abilities:
verbal comprehension,
number skills,
word fluency,
memory,
perceptual speed,
inductive reasoning,
spatial visualization
VNW MPIS
Which theory of intelligence is correct?/ sources of variability
Both are possible - limitations of factor analysis
Difficulty with factor analysis - **Source of variability **
-Researcher’s a priori hypothesis about what intelligence should be
-Labels applied to factors
Researchers must assign meaning to the labels
Nearly descriptive categories of an underlying relationship between multiple variables - what elements load onto the main factor
-Number of factors included in the model
Researchers can make an educated decision about how many factors they want to include
Most current theories of intelligence are more so hierarchical in nature
Hierarchial theories
A combination of theories
- ”g” factor at the top of the hierarchy
- Several broad classes of abilities in the middle= Memory processing speed, fluid intelligence, crystalized intelligence, —Primary factors / specialized skills at the bottom
Specific factors
Labels of where things are can vary depending on the model
IQ is one way of measuring your general mental ability - g
What can intelligence testing tell us?
IQ score = intelligence quotient score
- A measure of the person’s current level of functioning
- Long-term prediction is less accurate
Intelligence Testing
Utility?
- Predicting future behaviour (within a certain range of years)
- Predictive of academic achievement
- Sensitive to the presence of neuropsychological deficits - some dont necessarily target neuropsychological characteristics - does tap into attention, processing speed
Intelligence Testing
Criticisms
*Biased toward convergent, analytical, and scientific modes of thought
- Lack of emphasis on divergent, artistic, and imaginative modes
Being more broad not as linear - Lacks testing of social acumen & social fluency / getting along with the world
Ability to deal with the daily world and social fluency, theory of mind - Detached from underlying processes
- IQs are deeply personal
Need to understand WHY a child might be getting that score or performing in the way that they do
Not done to a child, you want to benefit the child
WISC - Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children
1930’s: Wechsler systemized subtests into a standard point scale
o WBIS> WISC, WAIS, WPPSI
Improved norms, changes in society and culture, more representative of the target population you’ve studied.
- Selection of subtests guided by a
conceptualization of intelligence that emphasizes “g
WISC Utility
Provides valuable information about the strengths and weaknesses of the individual
Standardized procedures allow for the comparison of a child’s performance to be compared to that of age-related peers - baseline measure of a child and also determine how they are progressing over time
—Standardizing = meaning from the score - comparing to peers, cant compare raw scores - compare to the norm
—Identify strengths and needs, compare performance across time
WISC -IV Subtests /SCALE
15 subtests
o 10 core
o 5 supplementary
Full scale comprised of 4 composite scores
* Verbal comprehension (VC)
* Working memory (WM)
* Perceptual reasoning (PR)
* Processing speed (PS)
WISC Scoring
- Obtain raw scores for each test
- Sum the raw scores
- Summed scores are converted into scaled scores by consulting a table specific to the age of the child
why are standardization studies important
Allows inferences to be made about the child’s performance
WISC verbal comprehension
CORE
similarities
vocabulary
comprehension
SUPP
information
word reasoning
WISC working memory
CORE
digit span
letter-number sequencing
SUPP
arithmetic
WISC perceptual reasoning
CORE
block design
picture concepts
matrix reasoning
SUPP
picture completion
WISC processing speed
CODE
coding
symbol search
SUPP
cancellation
WISC administration time
1,5 hrs
WISC Subtest Sequence
Established as part of test
- Aimed at maintaining child’s interest and minimizing
fatigue
- Block Design 9. Comprehension
- Similarities 10. Symbol Search
- Digit Span 11. Picture Completion
- Picture Concepts 12. Cancellation
- Coding 13. Information
- Vocabulary 14. Arithmetic
- Letter-Number Sequencing 15. Word Reasoning
- Matrix Reasoning
WISC Querying
Each subtest will have rules about querying for additional information
WISC repeated instructions
-Most subtests have an introductory statement which can be repeated if the child asks or if you think they have not understood
- Other subtests have sample items
WISC starting points
Depends on the child’s age
WISC reverse sequence
Child does not obtain a perfect score on the first several items – must then administer some items in
reverse order until the child has been correct X number of times
WISC Discontinuation rules
Number of incorrect responses on a test (e.g. 5 in last 8 trials)
Looking for geniuses
Lewis Terman
- a psychologist in the late 1800s to mid-1950s
Revised the simon binet intelligence test - developed because of mandate from french gov to identify children who are having difficulties
Standardized simon binet in american sample - mental age chronological age/100 to determine IQ- used in soldier recruits in WW1
Genetic Studies of Genius
* Intelligence in inherited and maintained
* Intelligence is a strong predictor of life outcomes
o e.g. academics, careers, Nobel prize winnings
Stanford University, 1921
* Tested IQ in a high volume of children
o Narrowed his sample to 1528 children
o Only high-IQ children (IQ = 135 or above)
o Tracked their life achievements
§ Academics
§ Types of jobs
§ Earnings
§ Important awards (Nobel Prize)
Results
Two-year follow-up:
* Children maintained their high IQ scores
* Pioneered research into “giftedness” in children
Does a genius-level IQ as a child = higher likelihood of
extreme life success?
* Terman found no evidence
* His sample did not produce more Nobel prize winners
than average
* Several children did not have “high-paying” careers
Terman Criticisms
- Emphasis on IQ scores
- Several aspects influencing life success
- Sample not representative
- Perpetuated stereotypes about intelligence
Several studies on-going on his sample today
Profiling:
an examination of the core skills and capacities that underlie performance on the
intelligence test
Profiling criticisms
Over interpretation of subtest and index scores
o Subtest reliabilities are too low and not sufficiently specific for interpreting individual profiles
Counter position of criticisms of profiling
- Interpretation is not done in isolation
- Can provide valuable insight when considering recommendations and remediation
Lumpers
If intelligence is seen as a unifying
“g” factor, then profiling may not be
helpful
all lump into one category
Splitters
If intelligence is based on a number of equally weighted factors, then profiling may be helpful
multiple circles and connecting lines
Profiling best falls under splitters perspective
Should we split the FSIQ score?
FSIQ is a good measure of general intelligence, but tells us little about the child’s specific abilities
- Profile analysis à the child’s unique abilities
- Provides information beyond one general IQ score
Cant see range of the score if we only look at the full-scale scores
Flat Profile high
flat line
All subtest scores are far above
average (14 to 16 range)
Gifted
May profit from specialized
instruction
Flat profile low
All subtest scores are far below average (2 to 4 range)
Limited
May need specialized instruction
Variable profile large
Rollercoaster style
All subtest scores are across a large
range (3 to 16)
Specialized instruction designed to
capitalize on the strengths and
remediate the weaknesses
Variable profile small
Variable profile
All subtest scores are across a small
range (8 to 12)
Average ability across all areas
Standard program of instruction
Profile analysis
Goal:
To generate hypotheses about the child’s abilities
Stages of a profile analysis
- Implications of the FSIQ (inter-individual comparison)
- Compare index scores with each each other & to the norm
* VCI, PRI, WMI, PSI - Compare subtest scaled scores within each composite with the mean score of the
composite - Compare one subtest relative to another
Stage 1 profile analysis
Implications of the FSIQ (inter-individual comparison)
FSIQ compared to the normative sample evaluating the full scale score relative to the norm group - mean 100 sd 15
Relative to other children his age, Joe’s overall ability fell in the above average range”
Use extremely low, borderline, below average, average, high or adobe, gifed
Stage 2 profile analysis
Compare index scores with each each other & to the norm
VCI, PRI, WMI, PSI
Inter individual - relevant to age matched peers
Index scores compared to normative sample Evaluating index scores relative to the norm group - same as FSIQ
Verbal Comprehension Index Perceptual Reasoning Index Working Memory Index Processing Speed Index
Intra- comparisons within the individual
Compare composite index scores Determine the critical difference necessary for statistical significance
Difference of 16 between two subscale - look at manual to determine whether this is statistically significant - will give a critical value the difference needs to be larger than
1. Critical values depend on your age group
2. If you see a spread in the index scores -
EXAMPLE - verbal comprehension > perceptual reasoning
—May suggest that: * verbal comprehension skills are better developed than perceptual reasoning skills
—-verbal processing is better developed than visual spatial processing
—-auditory vocal processing is better developed than visual discrimination processing
—–knowledge acquired through accumulated experiences is better developed than the knowledge needed to solve nonverbal problems
Sattler Tables
We can look at synthesized material generated by Sattler (and other psychologists)
Major abilities and background factors that are associated with each composite
Shows which abilities are covered by each index - compare and make statements based on each indicies
Stage 3 profile analysis
Inter individual
Refer to graph
Intra
Interested in the subtest scaled scores that reflect strengths, average ability, and weaknesses relative to the child’s average ability
For example.
relative to the norm 13 represents a strength
BUT for this child, this particular ability is less well developed relative to the child’s abilities in other areas
To compare a subtest to a composite score…
1. Determine the index > PRI - percetupal reasoning index
2. Sum the scaled scores
3. Determine the mean and difference from the mean
——subtest scaled score – index mean = determine if difference is significantly significant - Are the differences large enough to determine if there are strengths or weaknesses in performance? - absolute value compared to critical value
Consult table in the manual to find critical values
Example phrases that might be used in that intra-individual comparison:
“relative to Joe’s overall level of ability”
“within Joe’s average level of functioning”
relatively less developed”
“relative weakness”
Stage 4 profile analysis
Compare one subtest relative to another
Similarities > Information
conceptual thinking, lexical knowledge, and language development are better developed than… fund of information and intellectual curiosity
This process also matches how clinicians write up results
Challenges w profiling
Any subtest will involve a variety of different abilities
- Which function is responsible for the strength or weakness?
Weakness on coding: *
rapid processing of the digit symbols
* planning
* sequencing
* learning the digit symbol pairs
* making the actual response
* high level of motivation
Problem with sequencing?
Problem with speeded tests?
Short-term memory?
Motivation?
Visual acuity (behavioural)?
- Variability outside normal limits OF PROFILING may reflect
o Disability
o Exceptionality
o Psychopathology
OR simply a reflection of the child’s cognitive strengths and weaknesses
