What do we stand to learn about an individual whose

intelligence is measured by an IQ test?

E. Alpay
Department of Chemical Engineering and Chemical Technology,
Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine,
Prince Consort Road, London. SW7 2BY.
e.alpay@ic.ac.uk
Abstract.
The limitations of IQ tests are described and some elaboration given on the criticisms which
they have attracted. Such criticisms involve the uncertainty of the underlying meaning of intelligence,
and the difficulty in devising bias-free tests which lead to unambiguous test interpretations. Having
established a background to intelligence and intelligence testing, the value of IQ testing of an individual
is considered. Such benefits include the specific testing of abilities, and perhaps a means of evaluating
student learning styles.
Introduction.
Standardised tests for the measurement of specific abilities (i.e. psychometric tests) are widely
used to evaluate the educational and vocational prospects of individuals. Such tests typically generalise
student abilities into an intelligence quotient (IQ), which for modern tests is derived by comparing the
students scores to those of a reference group of students who are the same age as the individual. In
recent years, intelligence tests have come under increasing criticism due to, for example, the narrow
definition of intelligence which they infer, the questionable reliability and validity of the tests, and the
misuse or misinterpretation of test results which has on occasion arisen. In the following sections,
discussion will be given on the nature of intelligence and intelligence tests, and thus elaboration on the
criticisms which such tests have attracted. Consideration will then focus on some specific aspects of IQ
testing which may, nevertheless, be of value to educators.
Intelligence and its Testing.
The design of a test for the measurement of intelligence must be based on some assumptions of
the nature and characteristics of intelligence itself. Even at this fundamental level, much controversy
and debate arises. For example, there are ongoing debates on whether or not intelligence can be viewed
as a singular entity, such as a general intelligence (g) (Spearman (1927)), as a three-dimensional entity
which consists of internal (operational), experiential and contextual aspects (Sternberg (1988)), or
indeed as numerous discrete intelligences (multiple intelligences) which cover the broad spectrum of
abilities which individuals exhibit (Gardner (1993)). Controversy also exists on the extent to which
intelligence is innate (inherited), and as importantly, the significance of any such innate attribute(s)
given the environmental and social influences on intelligence.
Irrespective of the perceived nature of intelligence, it is now widely accepted that modern
standardised tests do not sample all forms of abilities, such as creativity, practical sense, and social
sensitivity (APA (1996)). For example, the Weschler scales are amongst the most frequently employed
(at pre-school, school and adult levels), and yet principally focus on verbal items which deal with
general knowledge, vocabulary, comprehension, mathematics and similarities and analogies, and
performance items which deal with, for example, picture arrangement and completion, and spatial
relations. Other tests, such as the Standford-Binet scales, and in particular Ravens Progressive Matrices
(see Gardner (1996)), focus on a content validity (see below) of general intelligence, such that emphasis
is given on information-processing abilities, and reasoning (e.g. abstract / visual) and adaptation skills.
Psychometric tests therefore, have contributed to a rather narrow perspective of intelligence, in which
focus is given on cognitive abilities. This in turn, has had influences on educational curricula (e.g. the
three Rs), the evaluation of student progress through the educational system, and ultimately
vocational selection. Thus, whilst it is true that Weschler tests of IQ correlate well with school
achievement, this should not be too surprising, as school achievement itself has primarily focussed on
the logical-mathematical and linguistic abilities emphasised by IQ tests. As importantly, IQ testing has

created a culture in which other abilities (or intelligences) are not equally valued, and more importantly,
are not utilised effectively (if at all) to achieve a desired learning outcome.
Why is there a need to address abilities outside that which is measured by IQ? Although
scholastic achievement as currently defined is of value to society, its incomplete representation of the
human intellect may perhaps be reflected in the statistics pertaining to job success. In specific, although
intelligence tests may help to predict occupational status, they are less well at predicting job or career
success. Such success will also be dependent upon other individual characteristics such as motivation
and interpersonal strengths. The implication here is that certain talents and abilities are not effectively
fostered in schools, and this may subsequently lead to issues of poor motivation and creativity, or
indeed low self-esteem, in later life.
Other criticisms of IQ testing have revolved around the design and administration of the test
itself. For example, even if what is being measured by the test is deemed as representative of a valuable
individual quality, then for the test results to be viewed as unambiguous, it is necessary to ensure that
the test is:
(i)

reliable, i.e. the test gives consistent results such that unsystematic variations are minimised,

(ii)

valid, i.e. the test measures what it is intended to measure such that, for example, it is
consistent with other tests of similar purpose (criterion or concurrent validity), can be used to
accurately predict future success in the areas being measured (predictive validity), the specific
test questions consistently reflect the purpose for which the test is required (content validity),
and the test has a congruent relationship with the theoretical construct it is supposed to be
measuring (construct validity); see also the discussions of Gardner (1996),

(iii)

bias-free, i.e. the test has no systematic bias towards individuals of, for example, different
social, economic or ethnic groups, or indeed, bias is not imposed under the artificial conditions
of test administration.

In practice, modern tests such as the Weschler scales are reported to have satisfactory internal
and retest reliability, and both criterion and construct related validity are indicated (Doty et al. (1997)).
However, problems may arise outside the test itself through the interpretation and use of results, which
may be related to a lack of recognition (or intentional omission) of inherent assumptions that such tests
involve. Some specific examples of IQ test misinterpretation are listed below:

Inter-group test differences between students of different nationality attributed to intelligence

or ability, when this may in fact be representative of cultural and schooling differences. For
example, Japanese children are observed to be better in mathematics than European and North
American children, but the Japanese school-emphasis and subsequently prior knowledge of
mathematics is likely be the reason behind this, rather than any measure of logicalmathematical intelligence.

Test differences which are attributed to innate (genetic) factors which may in fact be indicative
of the individuals early nutrition, or the visual and technical environment which the individual
may have encountered (Neisser (1997).

Whilst innate factors may contribute to individual differences in psychometric intelligence, the
pathway by which such genes produce their effects is not fully known, and thus the influences
of social or environmental factors (or indeed the specific contributory facets of these) cannot
be quantified.

Although no overall difference in gender differences in intelligence are reported, substantial

differences do appear in specific abilities (APA (1996)). For example, particular visual-spatial
strengths in males, and verbal strengths in females have been identified. However,
interpretation of such differences do not always distinguish between social influences and
physiological influences.

Black-white differences in IQ scores as reported by Herrnstein and Murray (1994) suggest that:
(i) individuals of low IQ are likely to be involved in crime, to be on welfare (social) support,
2

and to exhibit other forms of social pathology, and (ii) such IQ differences are probably due to
genetic factors, and difficult to change. The disturbing implication here is the innate inferiority
and undesirability of certain groups (blacks in this case), which has fuelled the prejudice of
certain political groups. Although Herrnstein and Murray claim to remain neutral on the
reasons behind black-white intelligence differences, other authors have commented on the
rhetorical brinkmanship employed (Gardner (1999)). For example, the authors failed to
recognise the comparable intelligence scores between black and white individuals when the
black individuals were adopted or fostered by white guardians.
In addition to test misinterpretation, since IQ tests are given outside the normal context of human
behaviour, then this in itself may incur an inherent bias towards certain individuals, e.g. those who are
particularly social-motivated in their work and learning (see below), or are particularly intelligent within
their environmental setting. For example, as discussed by Gardner (1996), intelligence may not be
solely contained within the individual but distributed to accommodate technological tools and other
informational resources.
In terms of learning theories, the issue of the predictive validity of an IQ test is somewhat
inconsistent with the constructivist view of learning. In specific, if learning involves the assimilation of
new information into existing knowledge schema, and relies upon the synergetic assemblage of
cognitive operations through experience, concept mappings and teacher facilitation (see, for example,
Glasersfeld (1989)), then a current measure of some intellectual quality may not necessarily be related
to the cognitive processes which will govern future learning performance. Thus, whilst tests such as
Ravens Progressive Matrices rely on abstract visual reasoning, and reduce bias associated with priorknowledge, it is not reflective of the experience-based intelligence which is required in everyday life. In
a similar fashion, the concept of an IQ test gives little recognition to Vygotskys ideas of a zone of
proximal development (ZPD) in learning, i.e. the zone between the level of learning of an individual in
isolation and in social situations involving other more knowledgeable individuals. Evidence suggests
that good learning situations are achieved when learners are engaged in their ZPD (Biggs and Moore
(1993), Gardner (1996)), and thus the social influence of learning is as important as any standing
academic ability in predicting future success. Furthermore, as first noted by Piaget, it is not the number
of correctly answered questions on an IQ test which is perhaps important, but the reasoning and
thought-processes which lead to an incorrect solution. Such analysis is likely to be more revealing and
indicative of intellectual qualities than a simple number count, but to date have seen limited application.
Finally, Neisser (1997) provides a discussion on the significant increases in IQ observed
world-wide over the last century or so. For example, on average a 3-point increase every 10 years in
standard broad-spectrum IQ (mean of 100) has been reported (re Flynn Effect). Such increases are too
rapid to be explained by genetic factors, and further challenges the concept of general intelligence.
However, the results emphasise the environmental and social influence on the psychometric
intelligence. For example, the nature of this intelligence-gain has been principally attributed to visual
analysis, due to the nature of the modern visual-technical environment, and possibly to improvements in
nutrition (particularly a reduction in malnutrition).
What, then, does IQ tell us about an individual?
The above discussions have highlighted the limitations of IQ tests, and the care needed in
interpreting individual attributes from such tests. Having established this background, discussion will
now be given on specific test features which may be informative about an individual. It is perhaps
appropriate to start with a quotation from the Harvard Psychologist E.G. Boring that intelligence is
what intelligence tests test (Boring (1923)), and address some the deductions which arise from this:

If the abilities for a particular task or job can be clearly defined, in which social, motivational
and other personal characteristics are not deemed as necessarily important, then a test
addressing equivalent abilities may be reflective of the individuals appropriateness for the
task. Obviously, few tasks may be so clearly and narrowly defined.

The tests will be reflective of the current and specific abilities of the student, and thus may
yield some evaluation of, for example, historical progress in these abilities, and possibly
indicate areas for further development. A relatively low IQ may also be indicative of
motivational and emotional issues which may have hindered the specific academic progress of
the individual.

If the notion of multiple intelligences is accepted, then psychometric tests could form one part
of an assessment medium which enables the student to demonstrate a wide spectrum of
abilities. Likewise, the tests could also be used to assess the learning style which may be
particularly appropriate for an individual.

For an individual who scores highly on IQ tests such as the Weschler scales, then this may be
supportive of an effective (academic) learning and assessment format for the individual. As
mentioned above, IQ and scholastic achievement do on whole correlate positively, but this is
not too surprising if intelligence is scholastic achievement, and intelligence tests test scholastic
achievement.

At the extremes of IQ scores (particularly at very low IQ), the significance of the IQ test
increases. The tests may thus be a method of confirming severe learning difficulties in certain areas.
However, in very severe cases, (psycho-) biological reasons may exist, and the use of an IQ test may be
rather artificial and insensitive towards the individual. At the other extreme of high IQ, care is needed
not to impose expectations on the individual, which may, for example, cause anxiety, or influence the
academic and career progression of the individual against any intrinsic inclinations. In both cases, and
perhaps all cases, the benefits of a student having information of personal IQ is unclear, but the onus
may be on the teacher to address how the student intelligence (desired abilities) may be improved.
As mentioned above, IQ tests have exposed inter-group differences within a given society.
Although such differences are of continued debate, perhaps all that can be said about an ethnic (e.g.
black) individual who has an average score amongst his group, but otherwise a low score compared to
the majority (e.g. white) group, is that the educational system has failed the individual. Such a stance is
imperative if there is to be a commitment to human equality. Even the use of such classification based
on superficial characteristics of skin colour, which neglect to recognise individual qualities (some of
which may have been formed through the social influences of the majority group), may be deemed as
inherently prejudiced. However, on a positive note, if inter-group (inter-racial) differences are to be
eliminated in areas deemed to be of value to society, then psychometric tests may be the means by
which the success of such initiatives are measured.
Conclusions.
The value of IQ testing has been appraised through discussions of the concept of intelligence,
and the appropriateness and limitations of psychometric tests. The scholastically geared nature of
intelligence tests, which principally focus on linguistic and logical-mathematical abilities, suggests that
IQ scores are only partially representative of the wide spectrum of human abilities. Likewise, as these
do not address the many environmental and social influences on intelligence, then the tests provide little
insight into cognitive development. Nevertheless, the specific benefits of IQ testing may be to assess
specific facets of an individuals abilities, and act as a guide for further developments in these abilities.
Likewise, where IQ tests are low, this may indicate to a teacher where student-centred attention is
needed to address for example, learning style, prior-knowledge, and motivational and emotional issues.
References.
American Psychological Association (APA), 1996, Knowns and unknowns of intelligence, APA Online
Press Release: http://www.apa.org/releases/intell.html
Biggs, J., Moore, P.J., 1993, The process of learning. Prentice Hall.
Boring, E.G., 1923, Intelligence as the tests test it. New Republic, 6 June, 35.
Doty, N., Beussink, M., Glenn, J., 1997, Tests of intelligence (Department of Psychology, Southeast
Missouri State University):
http://psychology2.semo.edu/PY531/chap9/index.htm
Glasersfeld, E.V., 1989, Learning as a constructive activity. In: Murphy, P., Moon, B. (Eds.),
Developments in learning and assessment, pp 5-18, Hodder and Stoughton / Open University Press,
London.
Gardner, H., 1993, Frames of mind: the theory of multiple intelligences. Fontana, London.

Gardner, H., 1996, Intelligence in seven steps. In Creating the future: perspectives on educational
change, Dickinson, D. (Ed.), New Horizons for Learning: www.newhorizons.org/crfut_gardner.html
Gardner, H., 1999, Intelligence reframed: multiple intelligences for the 21st century. Basic Books, New
York.
Herrnstein, R.J., Murray, C., 1994, The bell curve: intelligence and class structures in American life,
Free Press, New York.
Neisser,
U.,
1997,
Rising
scores
on
intelligence
http://www.sigmaxi.org/amsci/articles/97articles/neisser.html

tests.

American

Spearman, C, 1927, The abilities of man. Macmillan, London.

Sternberg, R., J. (ed.), 1988, The nature of creativity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Scientist: