The Conceptual Development of Intelligence Testing in Psychology - Coursework Example

The historical and conceptual development of intelligence testing in psychology al affiliation The historical and conceptual development of intelligence testing in psychology 1.0. Introduction Intelligence testing is a primeval procedure which dates back to the ancient china (Simonton, 2003). It was until the twentieth century when it started being used majorly in the U.S (Randal & Oliver, 2005). Generally, intelligence testing involves the evaluation of someone’s psychological abilities and strengths. Additionally the tests were used to determine the leaders and heads of certain positions. According to Richard & Lisa (2000) one’s psychological ability and strength is very significant in their social and professional life. This is because it may enable them to acquire a good public opinion and positions. People with greater IQs are regarded as leaders in the social setting a position many people admire. Due to this the society gives preferences to people with outstanding psychological abilities to take on complex matters (Jeroen, 2003). The testing also gives employees the chance to choose people with the psychological preference of their choice (Gardner, 2006). In these modern days, the test is based under the field of psycho-metrics- the scientific approach in the study of psychological characteristics (Hunt, 2010), and is also done depending on the requirements of duty. Based on facts and tests, there is a historical background and the evolution of intelligence testing (Dawn and Patti, 2011). Dawn and Patti (2011) emphasize this fact by indicating that more and more analyst have brought their views on intelligence testing, unlike in previous times when the scope of research on intelligence tests was more of one sided. . Debates on the definition of intelligence testing have since time immemorial created a lot of varying views. Examples of such schools of thought include Gardener’s (2006) intelligence testing, Lubinski’s (2004) Spearman intelligence testing, and Gregory (2004) research on Alfred Binet’s intelligence tests as will be discussed in the essay. Different schools of thought hold different views on the definition of the concept. On one angle, analysts define intelligence as the general ability within an individual according to Plotnik & Kouyoumdjian (2010) while other analysts argue that intelligence is inclusive of a myriad of skills and talents in an individual. With much interest in the usefulness of the test and relevance in the study of persons, there arose the need to develop tests that would be useful in the analysis and examination of human intelligence (Hunt 2010). For instance the study by Gardener’s (2006) aids in the understanding can be analyzed on a cognitive point of view, while that of Spearman refers to intelligence being discussed on one angle of ability of an individual to encompass mental ability. According to Waterhouse (2006), the need to come up with theories to understand the behaviour of human beings has helped in the understanding of human intelligence. On a critical point of view, this study analyzes human intelligence as an intricate aspect. He visualizes intelligence in the form of multiple intelligence just like in the case of Gardener’s (2006) work, to suggest that human ability cannot be tested on a one sided view. The ability of human beings to control their behaviours is much more focused on proper description of the human’s ability to survive in the society and come up with new means of survival (Richard & Lisa, 2000). This is for the reason that, human intelligence is the foundation for the formulation of any form of work plan by the individual. Parks (2011) and Hunt (2010) emphasize that over the years; human beings have accepted the fact that human intelligence can simply be defined as the human ability to reason, prior to the development of intelligent tests to assess intelligence. Parks’ (2011) work draws human beings in search for meaning of intelligence while Hunt’s (2010) study sees the attempts to define human intelligence in a comprehensive manner. It is the need to develop these tests that theories were also devised, and basis for development of tests (Pyryt, 2000). This essay shall endeavour to critically analyse the meaning of intelligence from the thoughts of Spearman and Gardner, then discuss the historical and conceptual development of intelligence testing in relation to Alfred Binet’s contemporary debates, and finally take a conclusion on the conceptual issues raised in the essay. Body 1.1. Meanings of intelligence- Spearman’s conception of g & s factors to Gardner’s multiple intelligence  Born in the 1860s, Spearman is credited for his ability to develop the concept of general intelligence, commonly referred to as the g factor (Keith & Reynolds, 2007). The g factor was developed in an endeavour to weigh the aptitude of mental ability tests (Rindermann, 2007). After development of the g factor, he realised that some of the persons who underwent through these tests and performed extremely well were likely to perform poorly in other tests (Perez, Castejon & Gilar, 2010). In this case, therefore, he indicates that intelligence can only be assessed through evaluation of the cognitive capability of persons (Carroll, 2003). The study by Carroll (2003) conducted an analysis on five cognitive attributes on, flexibility of individuals in arithmetic, estimation of facts, reasoning ability, both in figures and in numerals, verbal ability, comprehension and memory of individuals. With an assumption on these cognitive abilities on a high order g-factor, Carroll (2003) aimed to analyze the intelligence ability of the individuals. From the findings on the study, all these cognitive abilities are known to contribute to the saturation of the g- factor of intelligence. Each of the cognitive aspects was seen to add up to add up to the attainance of the g- factor; thus, human intelligence can be measured through cognitive ability of an individual. In relation to the one theory intelligence, Lubinski (2004) portrays that, Spearman indicates that, this theory acts and can be validated in relation to one specific factor that weighs the intelligence of an individual, an aspect he refers to as the positive manifold. This study concurs with that of Olivarez & Bernard (2007) that indicates can be evaluated on one attribute that is referred to as the g factor. Beretvas, Reynolds & Keith (2010) indicate that Spearman administered different types of tests of varying abilities to different persons, which evaluated their intelligent abilities. This is an implication of the fact that reasons behind the tests were to assess the mental ability of the individuals. After the administration of these tests, Spearman found a great correlation from the administration of the tests, referred to as the positive manifold or the g factor (Lubinski, 2004). This study correlates to the study conducted by Ashton, Visser & Vernon (2006) who indicate that the g factor can be used in the study and evaluation of a person’s intelligence. Ashton, Visser & Vernon’s (2006) study validates the research conducted by Gardner’s (1999) by analysis on the g-factor of intelligence. This research indicates that – after study of cognitive ability and intelligence- cognitive capabilities contribute to the general intelligence of a person. This study was conducted to assess if intelligence can be indeed be assessed on a singular concept; which according to them was impossible. A practical assessment of the cognitive abilities ability of individuals portrays the notion of individuals, encompassing all rounded abilities to be of higher intelligence (Gardner, 1999). The definition of general intelligence, on the other hand, can be described through an assessment of reaction of time and the g factor (Gottfredson, 1997).This is an interpretation of the fact that time and IQ are beneficial in the study of intelligence, in that, tests administered in the assessment of time are related to intelligence ability of an individual (Gottfredson, 1997). According to research conducted by Keith & Reynolds (2007), intelligence of an individual cannot be alienated from the study of the ability to learn in the individuals, and an understanding of all the concepts that relate to cognitive ability of the persons under instruction (Carroll, 2003). In Spearman’s argument, therefore, an understanding of the intelligence of human beings cannot be studied without the incorporation of the sensory aspect of human beings (Keith & Reynolds, 2007). The ability to encode information that ultimately, leads to determination of the intelligence ability of the individual is not possible if the sensory abilities of the individual are not included as evidenced in the research conducted by Carroll (2003). According to Gardner, the level of intelligence can be well assessed through an analysis of the level of intelligence, previously defined as the g factor Gardner (1993) came to this conclusion after analysis of the term intelligence, which according to him is the ability to decode information that allows human beings unravel problems in the society. With the ability to internalize information, human beings are able to share knowledge with others, an aspect which Messick (1992) refers to as intelligence, portrayed through delivery of information and skills to the society. Olivarez & Bernard (2007) indicate that the rate at which information is being processed in the can be assessed in line with the g factor. This study was aimed at assessing individual evaluations of multiple, school-valued, and g factor intelligences. Information internalization is greatly correlated with the time an individual acts in reaction to the information (Messick, 1992). The faster an individual processes the information, the faster in which the information is being processed, and the alternatively the higher the IQ they possess. This validates the concept that human ability on multitasking, and performing these roles to near perfection means that they possess a high level of intelligence (Messick, 1992). Additionally, Prieto, et al. (2010) indicate that, general intelligence simply refers to an understanding of the wide-ranging concepts of information processing that entail the ability of an individual to perform various tasks with different abilities; thus, differences in the ability of persons. Therefore, in the study of Spearman, in relation to Gardner, intelligence is much more inclined in the study of the one factor theory, earlier depicted as positive manifold- essentially defined as intelligence (Beretvas, Reynolds & Keith, 2010). According to Gardner (1999), the Gardner theory refers to as the intelligence being a combination of factors ranging from bodily, linguistic aspects to musical abilities. This move is aimed at modifying previous models which excluded the fact that biological features, the role of a person in the society, and creativity are equally features of intelligence (Gardner, 1999). From Gardner’s study, multiple intelligence refers to the ability of person to function cognitively this suggests that, if certain parts of the brain are altered, the brain does not contain its cognitive ability; thus, loss of intelligence ability (Messick, 1992). Gardner’s theory, according to Gardner (2006) finds a lot of validity in the aspect of physical ability of an individual to determine intelligence of the individual, especially with the fact that the brain coordinates all the physical abilities of the individual. This fact can be validated by the assumptions made by Gardner (1999) who conducted a study in neuropsychology on brain isolation and intelligence ability of individuals. The study included research on patients succumbing to stroke and had impaired speech. From these findings, Gardner (1999) indicates that one aspect of intelligence that of verbal ability of the individual is no longer functional. This person, in that case can be described to be of lower intelligence as compared to a normal individual. Persons with physical impairments, therefore, are of low intelligence unlike normal persons (Messick, 1992). Tests measuring the linguistic ability of humans, spatial abilities are not all-inclusive as they do not incorporate other talents and abilities of individuals (Perez, Castejon & Gilar, 2010). This study provided all supportive and counteractive evidences on both the validity of g factor or multiple intelligences as a measure of intelligence. With the research concluded in the study, the readers are able to have a clear understanding of both concepts; thus, make a stand from an analysis of the concepts. 1.2. Historical and conceptual development of intelligence testing -Alfred Binet’s contemporary debates  In the 1900’s the French government asked psychologist Alfred Binet to determine the children who will need special education when they enrol in school (Gregory, 2004). From this activity, the French government had intended to identify the students who need special education since a law had been passed which required all French children to enrol in school. This exercise gave rise to the first IQ test (Alfred, 2002). Alfred Binet was aided by a colleague known as Theodore Simon. The two psychologist developed questions which mostly reflected away from school matters (Paul & Melvin, 2001). They include problem solving skills, memory and attention. From the test, the pair realized that some children tackled more advanced questions gave more advanced answers than others. Additionally, some younger children were able to answer more advances questions than older children. From the same age mates, there was outstanding intelligence among specific children. Answers from these students could be compared to an older age group. The significance of this test is still being felt even today this test involved children. It was aimed at determining how children incorporate and interpret information. It also considered factors like age and background. This is the most commonly used psychological test in all institution around the globe (Thurber, 2003). This first psychological test is formally referred to as the Binet-Simon scale. The test also had several limitations. Psychological abilities are far too broad to be quantified only in a few minutes and by few questions (Gregory, 2004). Additionally, the level of intelligence will be only justifiable if it was measured among children of the same background (Hunt, 2010). According to Simonton (2003) this would provide a level ground of factors that influence the psychological abilities. Simonton (2003) argued that some psychological tests would favour children from comfortable backgrounds. After the realization of the Binet Simon scale, the test was then brought to America. It attracted many interested parties who wanted to develop it (Jensen, 2002). One of the interested parties was Stanford University Psychologist Lewis Terman (Thurber, 2003). He took the already done test results and standardized them with American participants. It was for the first time published in 1916 and was formally known as the Stanford-Binet Intelligence scale. The test was very significant in America and it officially became the standard intelligence test used in America (Gregory, 2004). This test applied the using of the intelligence quotient (IQ) to represent an individual score on the test. The process involved the division of an individual mental age and chronological age then multiplying by one hundred. For instance, if a child is having a mental age of 7 and chronological age of 10 then he would have an IQ of 70 (7 /10×100). This test has become the most popular tool in IQ determination today even after a series of revisions since the year it was developed. The World War one gave rise to the subsequent testing tools. The U.S had the need of screening very many army recruits. Due to this, the APA and the committee of psychological recruits had to come up with good testing procedures. Psychologist Robert Yerkes came up with two tests known as the Army Alphas and the Beta tests. The army alphas was a written test while the beta test was an oral test designed for army recruits who could not read. These were carried through over two million soldiers. They helped the army commandants to determine different recruits and their different mental capabilities. This enabled them to correctly allocate military and army positions. After the world war one the tests were still used outside the walls of the army barracks. It was used on all manners of people; all ages, all backgrounds and different nationalities. For instance, the U.S used these tests to screen immigrants who entered the U.S at Ellis Island. However, the results of these tests were used to generalize the ability of specific populations. This led to restrictions to specific groups of immigrants which hindered them from entering the United States (Gardner, 2006). The history and development of intelligence testing was then boosted by the establishment of the Wechsler Intelligence Scales. It was developed by an American psychologist known as David Wechsler. His similarity with Binet is that they both described intelligence as the ability to think purposively, act rationally and effectively relate to his environment (Jeroen, 2003). He also believed intelligence should involve the measurement of different mental abilities. Wechsler also developed two tests which were specifically designed for children. They were the Wechsler intelligence scale fro children (WISC) and the Wechsler Preschool and Primary scale for children (WPPSI). Additionally, there was also an adult version of the test known as the WAIS-III. WAIS-III consisted of 14 subtests which gave results on three IQ scenarios: verbal IQ score, performance IQ score and the composite IQ score. According to Paul and Melvyn (2001) the test was designed to recognize disabilities in individuals. 2.0. Conclusion on the conceptual issues  From the above discussion, intelligence tests have over the years has been debatable procedures. In some instances people feel that morality and character traits should also be included in the tests. Some experts also feel the need of more comprehensive tests replacing the short answer tests. In these modern days technology and other artificial methods of intelligence determinacy are being developed. As the world waits for a universal intelligence test, the quest of finding the ultimate test still continues (Randall, 2005). The definitions of intelligence have indeed had quite a number of definitions and thoughts by various scholars (Goertzel, 2007; Kaufman & Sternberg, 2011; Plotnik & Kouyoumdjian, 2010).Others explain it on a biological point of view, not excluding the aspect of information process as the foundation of intelligence, whilst other go with the general ability to understand and discuss intelligence. Though theories like those proposed by Gardner have no valid experiments for back up, unlike that of the one factor theory, all have aided in an endeavour to describe the concept of intelligence. However, room for improvement of the same theories need to be a challenge to the contemporary schools of thought in the field of psychology. References Ashton, M., Visser, B., & Vernon, A. (2006). G and the measurement of multiple intelligences: A response to Gardner. Intelligence, 35, 507-510. Beretvas, N., Reynolds, R., & Keith, Z. (2010). Use of factor mixture modelling to capture Spearman’s law of diminishing returns. Intelligence, 38, 231-241. Carroll, J. (2003). The higher-stratum structure of cognitive abilities: Current evidence supports g and about ten broad factors. San Diego: Pergamon. Dawn, P. & Patti, L. (2011). Contemporary intellectual test: theories, tests and issues. New York: Guilford press. Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st. New York: Basic Books. ------------------- (2006). Changing Minds: The art and science of changing our own and other peoples minds. Boston MA: Harvard Business School Press. ----------------- (2006). On failing to grasp the core of MI theory: A response to Visser et al. Intelligence, 34, 503-505. Goertzel, B. (2007). Advances in Artificial General Intelligence: Concepts, Architectures and Algorithms: Proceedings of the AGI Workshop 2006. London: IOS Press. Gottfredson, L.S. (1997). Why g matters: The complexity of everyday life. Intelligence, 24, 79-132. Gregory, R. (2004). Psychological testing: History, principles, and applications. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Hunt, E. (2010). Human Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jensen, A. (2002). Galtons legacy to research on intelligence. Journal of Biosocial Science. 145 -1 72. Jeroen, J. (2003). A social history of psychology. London: Blackwell publishers. Kaufman, B. & Sternberg, R. (2011). The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Keith, C. & Reynolds, R. (2007). Spearman’s law of diminishing returns in hierarchical models of intelligence for children and adolescents. Intelligence 35, 267-281. Lubinski, D. (2004). Introduction to the special section on cognitive abilities: 100 years after Spearman (1094) General Intelligence, objectively determined and measured. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 96-111. Messick, S. (1992). Multiple intelligences or multilevel intelligence? Selective emphasis on distinctive properties of hierarchy: On Gardner’s Frames of Mind and Sternberg’s Beyond IQ in the context of theory and research on the structure of human abilities. Journal of Psychological Inquiry, 1, 305-384. Olivarez, A. & Bernard, L. (2007). Self-estimates of multiple, g factor, and school-valued intelligences. North-American Journal of Psychology, 9, 501-510. Parks, D. (2011). Big Questions, Worthy Dreams: Mentoring Emerging Adults in Their Search for Meaning, Purpose, and Faith. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Paul, S., Melvyn, D. (2001). The Oxford companion of United States history. New York: Oxford University Press. Perez, A., Castejon, J.L., & Gilar (2010). Confirmatory factor analysis of Project Spectrum activities. A second-order g factor or multiple intelligences? Intelligence, 38, 481-496. Plotnik, R. & Kouyoumdjian, H. (2010). Introduction to Psychology. London: Cengage Learning. Prieto, et al. (2010). Intelligence assessment: Gardner multiple intelligence theory as an alternative. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 225-230. Pyryt, M. (2000). Finding g: Easy viewing through higher order factor analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 190-192. Randall, W., & Oliver, W. (2005). Handbook of understanding and measuring intelligence. CA: SAGE Publishers Richard, R., & Lisa, A. (2000). Intelligence testing of minority students. CA: SAGE Publishers. Rindermann, H. (2007). The big g-factor of national cognitive ability. European Journal of Personality, 21, 767-787. Simonton, D. K. (2003). The Anatomy of Impact: What makes the great works of psychology great. American Psychological Association: Washington, D.C. Thurber, A. (2003). "I Am. Therefore, I Think: Explanations of Cognitive Development." Camping Magazine (July-August 2003). Waterhouse, L. (2006). Multiple intelligences, the Mozart effect, and emotional intelligence: A critical review. Educational Psychologist, 41, 207-225. Read More