The Foundations of Intelligence Testing - Case Study Example

What Should Intelligence Testing Actually Test? The history of intelligence testing reveals crude beginnings with limited application, progresses through the development of additional instrumentation with both specialized versions and more specific purposes, and lands at the contemporary proliferation of options for both testing and theoretically grasping intelligence in all of its forms. The present study examines the foundations of intelligence testing and makes recommendations about what such testing should really measure. The Foundation of Intelligence Testing The foundation of intelligence testing dates back to the earliest pioneers of the practice, before even Wechsler or Binet (Boake, 2002). In the mid-nineteenth century, a French doctor named Edouard Seguin employed mental testing that was emulated by an American named Henry Goddard, and a British scientist named Francis Galton developed testing that was administered in late-nineteenth century London (Boake, 2002). Though the instruments they developed and used were the earliest forms of intelligence testing, they weren’t identified as such in title. Instead, they had names such as “form board,” “mental test,” and “scale” (Boake, 2002). One such test was the “digit span test,” used since the late-nineteenth century by Galton (Boake, 2002). This test required the subject to repeat sounds, which were first nonsense sounds and later became numbers (Boake, 2002). There was also the “substitution test,” thought to be the result of a college experiment on learning processes (Boake, 2002). Indeed, portions of the Wechsler scales are believed to have grown out of tests similar to this one (Boake, 2002). Finally, in 1905, a set of scales were developed by the psychologist-psychiatrist duo of Alfred Binet and Theodore Simon (Boake, 2002). While previous tools had been used by Goddard and Galton (amongst others), Binet’s scales are commonly considered the first intelligence tests (Gardner, 1999). Their instrument was designed for use with children, and involved thirty short tests on thinking processes that took approximately forty minutes to administer (Boake, 2002). Language skills, memory, reasoning, digit span, and judgments were measured, and the authors eventually created new result scales that allowed for sensitivity to the test takers’ ages (Boake, 2002). The results of this test provided a quantified analysis of the child’s “intellectual level” or “mental age” (Boake, 2002, p. 386). Other tests developed with non-verbal intelligence measures that could be used with people who were less fluent or had hearing issues (Boake, 2002). As Gottfredson and Saklofske describe, the most influential aspect of Binet’s instrument was its ability to provide the first possibility for quantifying intellectual ability, if only “tolerably well” (2009, p. 187). Another influential instrument emerged in 1939, with the Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale (Boake, 2002). This is the test of intelligence that is most used in contemporary measures of intellect (Boake, 2002). The work of David Wechsler, the scale in this case was intended to be much less complicated than the Stanford-Binet, and standardized so that the interpretation of results could be more easily achieved (Boake, 2002). Eventually, a version of the test emerged for use in children, called the Wechsler-Bellview Intelligence Scale for Children (Ryan, Glass, & Bartels, 2010). This test provides the results referred to as the “Intelligence Quotient,” or IQ, and has gone on to be revised for use in various other populations as well (Canivez & Watkins, 2010). Notably, the formula for the IQ is mental age, divided by chronological age, multiplied by one hundred (Gardner, 2006). Definitions of intelligence vary depending on the instrument used for measuring intelligence; as Anastasi and Urbina point out, “intelligence is not a single, unitary ability, but a composite of several functions” (1997, p. 296). Pfeifer and Scheier point out that there is no agreement on a basic definition of intelligence, and that it isn’t required to have an agreed upon definition of intelligence to be able to understand and study it (1999). From the present understanding of intelligence as reflected in the scholarly research, it is evident that intelligence is too complex a subject to allow one simple definition to suffice. Instead, it must be considered within the context of the individual and the specific measurement instrument used for its measurement. Originally, intelligence was defined by Binet as being interrelated with educational potential (Esters, Ittenbach, & Han, 1997). The Stanford-Binet was designed to distinguish children who would benefit from traditional instruction from those who could not (Esters et al., 1997). Thus the instrument was designed to demonstrate the subject’s problem-solving ability in both the verbal and motor dimensions (Esters et al., 1997). Since their goal was to provide aid to children that were likely to encounter difficulties in school, it is logical that their measures of intelligence would be of such a design as to identify these children (Gardner, 1999). For this and other reasons, their instrument as it first appeared was of limited utility as going multiple age groups, populations, and applications. Also in the early 1900s, Charles Spearman studied intelligence, conceiving of the subject as a single entity he called “general intelligence,” rather than something with multiple dimensions and characteristics as would emerge in later decades (Gardner, 1999). Numerous studies and theories have challenged the accepted definitions of intelligence and the relevance of the IQ. Critics have often pointed out that instruments intended to measure intelligence are limited by the observation that intelligence changes over time and with age (Neisser et al., 1996). Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences (MI) emerged in the early 1980s and gained popularity swiftly (Gardner, 2006). Gardner’s theory posits that intelligence consists of far more than any one-dimensional concept can contain. Instead, multiple intelligences states that humans have many “computational capacities”—or ways and means of processing different types of information—that are representative of the multi-faceted nature of human intelligence (Gardner, 2006, p. 6). Another alternative theory of intelligence emerged to address how intelligence is multi-faceted rather than flat. Robert Sternberg’s theory described intelligence as a three-sided issue, including analytic, creative, and practical intelligence (Neisser et al., 1996). Sternberg also stressed that instead of describing “types” of intelligence, we should observe and analyze “patterns” of intelligence (Sternberg, 2000, p. 231). Sternberg further identifies the intersections of various patterns of intelligence, whereby “patterns of giftedness” are identified and labeled with names including “analyzer,” “creator,” and “analytic practitioner” (Sternberg, 2000, p. 234). The subject’s descriptor is based on their strongest patterns, with “analytic practitioner” being an expression of a person with analytic and practical skills (Sternberg, 2000, p. 234). Daniel Goleman’s theory of emotional intelligence (EI) also represented a challenge to the existing constructs of human intelligence (Cherniss, Extein, Goleman, & Weissberg, 2006). Emotional intelligence theory is separate from IQ and other intelligence models, and involves a person’s ability to identify emotions and use them for quality decision making (O’Neil, 1996). Goleman also describes the social component of emotional intelligence, in that the management of emotions in the social context of a relationship expresses emotional intelligence (O’Neil, 1996). Empathy is another dimension of emotional intelligence, as are hopefulness and optimism, even in the face of difficulties (O’Neil, 1996). In Goleman’s description, traditional intelligence quotient testing represents only about twenty percent of the factors significant to a person being successful in life, and the other eighty percent includes emotional intelligence among its composition (O’Neil, 1996). However, he elsewhere describes evidence suggesting that emotional intelligence is even more important than the intelligence quotient (O’Neil, 1996). Goleman also asserts that there is a positive relationship between high emotional intelligence and academic achievement in children (O’Neil, 1996). J.P. Guilford described a type of intelligence specific to social abilities (Romney & Pyryt, 1999). Though first defined and described in 1920, it was Guilford’s work in the 1960s that contributed to the popularity of the theory (Romney & Pyryt, 1999). Social intelligence is defined as “the ability to understand the feelings, thoughts, and behaviors of persons, including oneself, and to act appropriately (Romney & Pyryt, 1999, p. 137). Clearly, there is a relationship between Goleman’s theory of emotional intelligence and Guilford’s social intelligence theory, with many areas of overlap and interrelatedness. Despite his renown for attention to social intelligence, Guilford had actually described one hundred and fifty “factors of the intellect” (Gardner, 1999, p. 14). There are clearly many problems with typical intelligence quotient testing, including the dangers of using such assessments as definitive judgments of a child’s ability to learn. There is a potential for a child to be labeled as less capable than his peers, and for this to result in the educational system’s treatment of the child in an unfair way. Conversely, a child who is judged to be of superior intelligence could receive an undesirable stamp as well, with repercussions that could carry out through all of his school years. Additionally, the typical tests lack the sophistication to assess the subject on a variety of levels at the same time, so a person that has high intelligence quotient scores may still struggle because the same person tests poorly on emotional intelligence. Without gaining a bigger picture of an individual’s skills and personality traits as well as their shortcomings, inaccurate judgments could result. Based on this study of intelligence testing, it behooves psychologists and anyone else in the position of administering tests of intelligence to consider carefully both the instrument selected and the application of the results. There is no one way to define intelligence, as it pertains to so many areas of functioning and analysis. Instead, the instrument of analysis should be chosen based on the context of testing and what it is hoped will be achieved by gaining the test’s results. Now that there are such a variety of models for intelligence, there is no excuse for researchers to pay attention to only one expression of intelligence. Appreciating the human capacity for social, emotional, intellectual, analytical, practical, and multiple intelligences, we must accept the variety in their expression. This also results in gaining an appreciation for the value in each of these and discontinuing the practice of defining intelligence from a limited perspective. As such, the definitions that should be the basis of intelligence testing should be different depending on the situation. When testing for emotional intelligence, the E.I. theory’s model will be appropriate. When testing based on multiple intelligences, the M.I. theory’s model will be appropriate. Since no test can remain valid forever, any instrument used to measure intelligence of any type should be periodically and systematically reviewed to determine required changes (Resing & Tunteler, 2007). Furthermore, since intelligence changes based on social factors such as jobs, problem-solving requirements, and interests, the instruments will have more or less accuracy (Resing & Tunteler, 2007). Clearly, intelligence is not a static, one-size-fits-all commodity, but an individual, dynamic, and highly evolving characteristic of the human experience. References Boake, C. (2002). From the Binet-Simon to the Wechsler-Bellevue: Tracing the history of intelligence testing. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 24(3): 383- 405. Canivez, G.L., & Watkins, M.W. (2010). Exploratory and higher-order factor analyses of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV) adolescent subsample. School Psychology Quarterly, 25(4), 223-235. doi:10.1037/a0022046 Cherniss, C., Extein, M., Goleman, D., & Weissberg, R.P. (2006). Emotional intelligence: What does the research really indicate? Educational Psychologist, 41(4): 239-245. Esters, I.G., Ittenbach, R.F., & Han, K. (1997). Today’s IQ tests: Are they really better than their historical predecessors? School Psychology Review, 26(2), 211-224. Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed. New York: Basic Books. Gardner, H. (2006). Multiple intelligences: New horizons. New York: Basic Books. Gottfredson, L., & Saklofske, D.H. (2009). Intelligence: Foundations and issues in assessment. Canadian Psychology, 50(3), 183-195. Neisser, U. Boodoo, G., Bouchard, Jr., T.J., Boykin, A.W., Brody, N., Ceci, S.J.,…Urbina, S. (1996). Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. American Psychologist, 51(2), 77-101. O’Neil, J. (1996). On emotional intelligence: A conversation with Daniel Goleman. Educational Leadership, 54(1): 6-11. Pfeifer, R., & Scheier, C. (1999). Understanding intelligence. London: MIT Press. Resing, W.C.M., & Tunteler, E. (2007). Children becoming more intelligent: Can the Flynn effect be generalized to other child intelligence tests? International Journal of Testing, 7(2), 191-208. Romney, D.M., & Pyryt, M.C. (1999). Guilford’s concept of social intelligence revisited. High Ability Studies, 10(2), 137-142. Ryan, J.J., Glass, L.A., & Bartels, J.M. (2010). Stability of the WISC-IV in a sample of elementary and middle school children. Applied Neuropsychology, 17(1), 68-72. Sternberg, R.J. (2000). Patterns of giftedness: A triarchic analysis. Roeper Review, 22(4): 231- 235. Read More