User:WeijiBaikeBianji/IQquotations

Quotations from various books for improving Wikipedia articles

Feel free to use these quotations to update Wikipedia articles. This quotation list should be especially useful for updating articles on human intelligence and any aspect of IQ testing. The quotation collection will grow over the next year or more as I obtain reliable sources by interlibrary loan and read to verify and transcription-type the quotations. You are very welcome to discuss article improvements on the article talk page of any article where you plan to use these quotations.

Aiken, Lewis R. (31 May 2004) [Plenum Press 1996]. Assessment of Intellectual Functioning. Perspectives on Individual Differences (second (reprint) ed.). Springer. p. v. ISBN 978-0-306-48431-5. LCCN 95026038. OCLC 33443438. Psychological tests are a little like firearms; used carefully by someone with appropriate training, they can be very valuable, but in the hands of the incautious or inexpert, they are potentially dangerous. —Robert M. Thorndike

Aiken, Lewis R. (31 May 2004) [Plenum Press 1996]. Assessment of Intellectual Functioning. Perspectives on Individual Differences (second (reprint) ed.). Springer. p. 16. ISBN 978-0-306-48431-5. LCCN 95026038. OCLC 33443438. The most popular and enduring of all adaptations and revisions of the Binet-Simon Scale was made by Lewis Terman. Terman and Childs had published a preliminary revision of the scale in 1912 (Terman & Childs, 1912), and in 1916 a modification and extension called the Stanford Revision and Extension of the Binet-Simon Intelligence Scale was published. It incorporated Wilhelm Stern's concept of an intelligence quotient (IQ)—the ratio of mental age to chronological age in months. Later known as the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, Terman's revision of the Binet-Simon Scale served as a standard for intelligence testing throughout the world for over two decades.

Aiken, Lewis R. (31 May 2004) [Plenum Press 1996]. Assessment of Intellectual Functioning. Perspectives on Individual Differences (second (reprint) ed.). Springer. p. 25. ISBN 978-0-306-48431-5. LCCN 95026038. OCLC 33443438. Intelligence is a term having multiple meanings and a variety of definitions, ranging from the operational to the highly abstract. It is important to remember that intelligence is not an entity but a hypothetical construct used to refer to a wide range of behaviors labeled as 'intelligent.' Intelligent behavior is characterized as adaptive, problem solving, reasonable, autocritical, and productive. Despite criticisms of the concept of intelligence and attempts to measure it, the position adopted in this book is that it is a useful psychological concept.

Aiken, Lewis R. (31 May 2004) [Plenum Press 1996]. Assessment of Intellectual Functioning. Perspectives on Individual Differences (second (reprint) ed.). Springer. p. 31. ISBN 978-0-306-48431-5. LCCN 95026038. OCLC 33443438. The extent to which norms serve as an adequate standard for evaluating and interpreting test scores depends on how representative the test standardization group (the norm group) is of the population of examinees for whom the test is intended (the target population). Some intelligence tests are standardized on samples of individuals who are not truly representative of the population of people for whom the test was designed. For example, the standardization sample for the 1916 version of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale consisted primarily of children living in California. This was a convenient sample for a test constructed in California, but it was hardly representative of the wide range of American children to whom the test was eventually administered.

Aiken, Lewis R. (31 May 2004) [Plenum Press 1996]. Assessment of Intellectual Functioning. Perspectives on Individual Differences (second (reprint) ed.). Springer. p. 67. ISBN 978-0-306-48431-5. LCCN 95026038. OCLC 33443438. Human beings are not always entirely objective when scoring tests. Considering the fact that the scoring directions or guidelines for many items on tests such as the Stanford-Binet and Wechsler intelligence series are not completely clearcut, it is not surprising that a wide range of scores may be assigned to the same response. In an investigation of students' errors in administering and scoring the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—Revised (WISC-R), Slate and Jones (1990) found that failure to record responses correctly, judgmental and mechanical errors in scoring, failure to question ambiguous responses, and generosity in scoring were common and difficult to eliminate without extensive training. One might hope that such errors would be restricted to inexperienced student examiners, but they are also made by experienced testers. Franklin and Stillman (1982) found, for example, that both item scoring and administration errors on subtests of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) occurred in a sample of school psychologists and graduate students. Some errors were even serious enough to result in misplacement in special programs or incorrectly excluding individuals from those programs. In another investigation (Ryan, Prifitera, & Powers, 1983), nineteen professional psychologists and twenty graduate students scored a revised edition of the WAIS (the WAIS-R) that had been administered to two vocational counseling students. Scoring errors by both groups resulted in Verbal, Performance, and Full Scale IQ variations of 4 to 18 points.

Aiken, Lewis R. (31 May 2004) [Plenum Press 1996]. Assessment of Intellectual Functioning. Perspectives on Individual Differences (second (reprint) ed.). Springer. p. 67. ISBN 978-0-306-48431-5. LCCN 95026038. OCLC 33443438. Intelligence tests are rarely scored blindly, in the sense that the only information available to the scorer, other than the test responses, are the examinee's chronological age and sex and the date on which the test was given. More commonly, the scorer has enough additional information to form a distinct impression or attitude concerning the examinee. Unfortunately, this impression, which may be positive or negative, can affect the scoring of the test and lead to higher or lower scores than warranted.

Aiken, Lewis R. (31 May 2004) [Plenum Press 1996]. Assessment of Intellectual Functioning. Perspectives on Individual Differences (second (reprint) ed.). Springer. p. 79. ISBN 978-0-306-48431-5. LCCN 95026038. OCLC 33443438. Standardized tests can be scored by machine, but most individual intelligence tests are still scored by hand. Although group intelligence tests are completely objective in terms of their scoring, many answers to individual intelligence test items must be evaluated in a semiobjective manner. Consequently, scoring individual intelligence tests requires substantial training. Additional information about the examinee, which may be obtained from observations, interviews, or other reports and tests, can affect the manner in which a particular response to a test item is scored.

Aiken, Lewis R. (31 May 2004) [Plenum Press 1996]. Assessment of Intellectual Functioning. Perspectives on Individual Differences (second (reprint) ed.). Springer. p. 86. ISBN 978-0-306-48431-5. LCCN 95026038. OCLC 33443438. The first edition of the Stanford-Binet scale had a number of shortcomings. Two major problems were the low validities of certain items and the nonrepresentativeness of the norms. Recognizing the problems and limitations of the 1916 scale, Lewis Terman and his associate Maud Merrill began revising it in 1926. The two alternate forms (L and M), which were published eleven years later, bear the initials of the authors' first names.

Aiken, Lewis R. (31 May 2004) [Plenum Press 1996]. Assessment of Intellectual Functioning. Perspectives on Individual Differences (second (reprint) ed.). Springer. p. 87. ISBN 978-0-306-48431-5. LCCN 95026038. OCLC 33443438. Modern Western culture does not stand still, and by the mid-1950s it was obvious that the second edition of the Stanford-Binet needed revising and updating. Compared with the more recently published Wechsler intelligence scales, many of the items on the second edition seemed outmoded.

Aiken, Lewis R. (31 May 2004) [Plenum Press 1996]. Assessment of Intellectual Functioning. Perspectives on Individual Differences (second (reprint) ed.). Springer. p. 87. ISBN 978-0-306-48431-5. LCCN 95026038. OCLC 33443438. An extensive amount of research and statistical analysis had been conducted with the second edition of the scale, and the product of efforts to produce a completely new scale might have been a test that was conceptually related to its predecessor but was functionally inadequate. Consequently, the decision was made to compromise between the two aims of maintaining continuity with the two forms of the second edition and developing an instrument having more contemporary content and scoring.

Aiken, Lewis R. (31 May 2004) [Plenum Press 1996]. Assessment of Intellectual Functioning. Perspectives on Individual Differences (second (reprint) ed.). Springer. p. 87. ISBN 978-0-306-48431-5. LCCN 95026038. OCLC 33443438. As with the second edition, in administering the third edition of the scale (Form L-M) it was crucial for the examiner to be adept at establishing a friendly but professional relationship (rapport) with the examinee so the latter would be motivated to score as well as possible. It was also important for the examiner to have sufficient familiarity with the test to keep the examination moving rapidly enough to retain the examinee's interest. Furthermore, the examiner was expected to follow the directions in the manual carefully, not paraphrasing or reciting them from memory.

Aiken, Lewis R. (31 May 2004) [Plenum Press 1996]. Assessment of Intellectual Functioning. Perspectives on Individual Differences (second (reprint) ed.). Springer. p. 88. ISBN 978-0-306-48431-5. LCCN 95026038. OCLC 33443438. Adherence to the scoring criteria given in the manual was required, with the examiner exercising sound professional judgment when the exact responses given by the examinee were not listed in the manual. Because the decision to administer subtests at higher (or lower) levels depended on whether specified subtests were passed, responses were scored immediately after they were made. This meant that the examiner had to understand the test directions and scoring standards thoroughly and be discrete in the scoring and note-taking process so that it did not influence the examinee's motivation or other aspects of the examination.

Aiken, Lewis R. (31 May 2004) [Plenum Press 1996]. Assessment of Intellectual Functioning. Perspectives on Individual Differences (second (reprint) ed.). Springer. p. 88. ISBN 978-0-306-48431-5. LCCN 95026038. OCLC 33443438. A ratio IQ, like any other age norm, does not really satisfy the requirements of equality of age units. For this reason, direct comparisons of ratio IQs at different age levels are not meaningful. A ratio IQ of 90 at age 5, for example, is not directly comparable to a ratio IQ of 90 at age 15. In addition, the concept of ratio IQ is meaningless when applied to adults. It was never clear what CA figure was most appropriate in the denominator of the MA/CA ratio when testing adults. Fourteen, 16, and 18 years were all suggested at various times when it was felt that these were the CAs at which mental grouth stops.

Aiken, Lewis R. (31 May 2004) [Plenum Press 1996]. Assessment of Intellectual Functioning. Perspectives on Individual Differences (second (reprint) ed.). Springer. p. 88. ISBN 978-0-306-48431-5. LCCN 95026038. OCLC 33443438. Form L-M of the Stanford-Binet scale was not restandardized before its release in 1960, and therefore the MA scores were still expressed in terms of the results obtained with the norm group for the second edition of the scale.

Aiken, Lewis R. (31 May 2004) [Plenum Press 1996]. Assessment of Intellectual Functioning. Perspectives on Individual Differences (second (reprint) ed.). Springer. p. 89. ISBN 978-0-306-48431-5. LCCN 95026038. OCLC 33443438. The fourth edition of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale (SB-IV) was authored by Robert Thorndike, Elizabeth Hagen, and Jerome Sattler in 1986.

Aiken, Lewis R. (31 May 2004) [Plenum Press 1996]. Assessment of Intellectual Functioning. Perspectives on Individual Differences (second (reprint) ed.). Springer. p. 95. ISBN 978-0-306-48431-5. LCCN 95026038. OCLC 33443438. Perhaps the most serious criticism of the SB-IV was made by Reynolds (1987), who noted the serious consequences of failing to stratify the standardization sample by socioeconomic status, in addition to age, sex, race, geographic region, and community size. Reynolds maintains that the scaling of the area scores was improper, in that they were scaled according to the number, as opposed to the type, of subtests administered. Because the correlations between the various subtests, as well as correlations between area scores, are unequal, the composite scores and IQs are inaccurate whenever fewer than all the age-appropriate subtests are administered.

Aiken, Lewis R. (31 May 2004) [Plenum Press 1996]. Assessment of Intellectual Functioning. Perspectives on Individual Differences (second (reprint) ed.). Springer. p. 95. ISBN 978-0-306-48431-5. LCCN 95026038. OCLC 33443438. Following its initial publication by David Wechsler in 1939, it was not long before the Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale became the principal individual intelligence test for adults. Meanwhile, the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale maintained its position as the foremost intelligence test for children. With the publication of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC) in 1949, however, the Stanford-Binet faced strong competition.

Aiken, Lewis R. (31 May 2004) [Plenum Press 1996]. Assessment of Intellectual Functioning. Perspectives on Individual Differences (second (reprint) ed.). Springer. pp. 95–96. ISBN 978-0-306-48431-5. LCCN 95026038. OCLC 33443438. The Stanford-Binet was able to maintain its position in competition with the WISC for some years, but during the 1960s and 1970s the original WISC and a revised edition gained in popularity. The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—Revised (WISC-R), which was published in 1974, was designed for children aged 6 through 16 years, 11 months, 30 days.

Aiken, Lewis R. (31 May 2004) [Plenum Press 1996]. Assessment of Intellectual Functioning. Perspectives on Individual Differences (second (reprint) ed.). Springer. pp. 238–240. ISBN 978-0-306-48431-5. LCCN 95026038. OCLC 33443438. For many years, designers of intelligence tests have been besieged by the criticism that such instruments are loaded with tasks reflecting the cultural biases of Western society. It was hoped by Goodenough and Harris that their test would measure basic intelligence relatively free of cultural influences, but it has become clear that the task of drawing a human figure is significantly affected by specific sociocultural experiences. There have been several other noteworthy, but largely unsuccessful, attempts to develop a culture-free intelligence test, and subsequently the goal was modified to that of constructing a culture-fair test. On an culture-fair test of intelligence, an effort is made to include only items related to experiences common to a wide range of cultures. Consequently, items involving specific linguistic constructions and other culturally loaded tasks, such as speed of responding, are not included. In this sense, the Goodenough-Harris test was thought to be culturally fair.

Aiken, Lewis R. (31 May 2004) [Plenum Press 1996]. Assessment of Intellectual Functioning. Perspectives on Individual Differences (second (reprint) ed.). Springer. pp. 240–241. ISBN 978-0-306-48431-5. LCCN 95026038. OCLC 33443438. Culture Fair Intelligence Test Perhaps more familiar to test users in the United States is the Culture Fair Intelligence Test. This series of tests is composed of three scales: Scale 1 for children aged 4 to 8 years and adult retardates; Scale 2 for children aged 8 to 14 years and adults of average intelligence; and Scale 3 for college students, executives, and others of above-average intelligence. As illustrated by the sample problems in Figure 9-4, each scale is composed of four subtests (series, classifications, matrices, and conditions) for measuring the ability to perceive relationships.

Aiken, Lewis R. (31 May 2004) [Plenum Press 1996]. Assessment of Intellectual Functioning. Perspectives on Individual Differences (second (reprint) ed.). Springer. p. 241. ISBN 978-0-306-48431-5. LCCN 95026038. OCLC 33443438. Scale 1, which was published initially in 1950, was standardized on a small sample of American and British children. Scale 2 was standardized on slightly over 4,000 British and American children, who were almost certainly not representative of the total populations of children in these two countries. Although it was also small, the standardization sample for Scale 3 (3,140 American high school students divided equally among freshmen, sophomores, juniors, and seniors and a stratified job sample of young adults) was probably more representative of the target population.

Aiken, Lewis R. (31 May 2004) [Plenum Press 1996]. Assessment of Intellectual Functioning. Perspectives on Individual Differences (second (reprint) ed.). Springer. p. 241. ISBN 978-0-306-48431-5. LCCN 95026038. OCLC 33443438. Internal consistency reliability coefficients of the Culture Fair Intelligence Test are in the low .90s for Scale 1 and in the .70s for forms A and B of Scale 3 combined. Parallel forms coefficients for scales 2 and 3 are in the high .60s and low .70s; test-retest coefficients for the combined scores on the two forms (A and B) are in the .70s and .80s.

Aiken, Lewis R. (31 May 2004) [Plenum Press 1996]. Assessment of Intellectual Functioning. Perspectives on Individual Differences (second (reprint) ed.). Springer. p. 242. ISBN 978-0-306-48431-5. LCCN 95026038. OCLC 33443438. The Culture Fair Intelligence Test has been used in many different countries and correlated with a variety of criteria. Correlations with other intelligence tests range from .45 to .80 and from .22 to .59 with standardized achievement tests. Students' scores on the Culture Fair Intelligence Test have been related to teacher's ratings of students' behaviors and to grades in different school subjects. The scores have also been factor analyzed, yielding a general intelligence factor.

Aiken, Lewis R. (31 May 2004) [Plenum Press 1996]. Assessment of Intellectual Functioning. Perspectives on Individual Differences (second (reprint) ed.). Springer. p. 242. ISBN 978-0-306-48431-5. LCCN 95026038. OCLC 33443438. The Raven Progressive Matrices and the Culture Fair Intelligence Test represent commendable efforts to develop tests on which groups from different cultures score equally well. It is now recognized, however, that constructing test items whose content is independent of experiences that vary from culture to culture is probably impossible. A not uncommon finding is that middle-class Caucasian groups score higher on the culture-fair tests as well as on more verbal, 'culturally loaded' intelligence tests. Even the Culture Fair Intelligence Test and similar instruments rely on skills—abstract thinking, problem solving, detecting relationships—that appear to be emphasized more in Western society than in other cultures.

Aiken, Lewis R. (31 May 2004) [Plenum Press 1996]. Assessment of Intellectual Functioning. Perspectives on Individual Differences (second (reprint) ed.). Springer. p. 249. ISBN 978-0-306-48431-5. LCCN 95026038. OCLC 33443438. Despite criticisms of Western-style intelligence tests, translations and adaptations of these tests have been employed in many non-English-speaking and other English-speaking countries. The Wechsler tests, for example, have been translated, adapted, and renormed in several countries. Examples are the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS), Nederlandstalige bewerking (Netherlands); the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—Risived (WISC-R), British edition; the Naylor-Harwood Adult Intelligence Scale (Australia); and Escala de Inteligencia Wechsler para Niños-Revisada de Puerto Rico.

Aiken, Lewis R. (31 May 2004) [Plenum Press 1996]. Assessment of Intellectual Functioning. Perspectives on Individual Differences (second (reprint) ed.). Springer. p. 250. ISBN 978-0-306-48431-5. LCCN 95026038. OCLC 33443438. Culture-fair tests are not completely devoid of the effects of culture. Although the tests are nonverbal, cultural differences exist in areas other than language. Certainly nonverbal tests, which are viewed as more culturally fair, have done no better than more culturally loaded tests in predicting academic and vocational performance of persons of lower socioeconomic status or minority groups in the United States.

Aiken, Lewis R. (31 May 2004) [Plenum Press 1996]. Assessment of Intellectual Functioning. Perspectives on Individual Differences (second (reprint) ed.). Springer. p. 251. ISBN 978-0-306-48431-5. LCCN 95026038. OCLC 33443438. Culture-loaded, verbally oriented tests are also better predictors of most criteria of educational and job success in Western cultures. Summarizing a number of findings on this matter, Anastasi (1988) concluded that tests utilizing nonverbal content are probably no more culture fair than verbal intelligence tests. In fact, nonlanguage tests, which often demand analytic, abstract thinking of the sort encouraged in Western culture may be more culturally loaded than tests that rely heavily on written or spoken language.

Aiken, Lewis R. (31 May 2004) [Plenum Press 1996]. Assessment of Intellectual Functioning. Perspectives on Individual Differences (second (reprint) ed.). Springer. p. 251. ISBN 978-0-306-48431-5. LCCN 95026038. OCLC 33443438. In no other country has psychological testing flourished as much as in the United States, but the United Kingdom and the British Commonwealth countries have not been far behind. From the 1940s to the 1960s, intelligence tests were administered to all English children near the age of 11 years for purposes of placing them in different vocational training classes (Pellegrino & Varnhagen, 1985). Intelligence tests and test publishers abound in English-speaking countries (Tables 10-1 and 10-2), where the tests are used principally for educational selection, diagnosis, and placement.

Aiken, Lewis R. (31 May 2004) [Plenum Press 1996]. Assessment of Intellectual Functioning. Perspectives on Individual Differences (second (reprint) ed.). Springer. pp. 251–253. ISBN 978-0-306-48431-5. LCCN 95026038. OCLC 33443438. Two Commonwealth countries—Canada and Australia—make extensive use of intelligence testing in schools, clinics, and employment situations, but many of the tests are imported from the United States and Great Britain. The Netherlands and the Republic of South Africa devise many of their own tests, also adapting some American and British tests for local use. In all of these countries, intelligence tests are used for purposes similar to those for which they are administered in the United States: identification of exceptional children (mentally retarded, mentally gifted, learning disabled, etc.) for special education and training, selection of students for higher education and professional schools, job selection and placement, clinical diagnosis, and other uses.

Aiken, Lewis R. (31 May 2004) [Plenum Press 1996]. Assessment of Intellectual Functioning. Perspectives on Individual Differences (second (reprint) ed.). Springer. p. 254. ISBN 978-0-306-48431-5. LCCN 95026038. OCLC 33443438. With the exception of the United States, a larger number of intelligence tests and research reports concerned with intelligence have been published in England than in any other country. Both group and individual tests have appeared in quantity in Great Britain since the early part of the century. Three of the most popular tests are Raven's Progressive Matrices, the Moray House Tests, and the AH Tests.

Aiken, Lewis R. (31 May 2004) [Plenum Press 1996]. Assessment of Intellectual Functioning. Perspectives on Individual Differences (second (reprint) ed.). Springer. pp. 254–255. ISBN 978-0-306-48431-5. LCCN 95026038. OCLC 33443438. One of the most comprehensive and carefully developed of all intelligence test batteries is the British Ability Scales (BAS) (by C. D. Elliott, D. J. Murray, & L. S. Pearson), a descendant of the British Intelligence Test. Several models or theories were taken into consideration in designing the BAS. The first phase in the development of the BAS took place during 1965-1970 at the University of Manchester under the guidance of Frank Warburton. The second phase, from 1973, was directed by Colin D. Elliott. Construction of the BAS incorporated the Rasch scaling procedure, which enables cognitive abilities to be expressed or estimated in norm-free (sample-free) interval units and new items to be added to a scale when desired.

Aiken, Lewis R. (31 May 2004) [Plenum Press 1996]. Assessment of Intellectual Functioning. Perspectives on Individual Differences (second (reprint) ed.). Springer. p. 264. ISBN 978-0-306-48431-5. LCCN 95026038. OCLC 33443438. One variable that has a significant formative effect on specific cognitive abilities is education. Not only does education affect memory (Cole et al., 1971; Wagner, 1974) and the ability to perform abstract, symbolic tasks (Scribner & Cole, 1973), but mental abilities in general become more differentiated as a result of formal and informal education (Gibson et al., 1962). For example, it has been found that children growing up in isolated village communities do not have as well-developed memories as those who grow up in cities (Meacham, 1975; Wagner, 1974). Such urban-rural differences in mental abilities are, at least in part, undoubtedly influenced by differences in school attendance.

Aiken, Lewis R. (31 May 2004) [Plenum Press 1996]. Assessment of Intellectual Functioning. Perspectives on Individual Differences (second (reprint) ed.). Springer. pp. 264–265. ISBN 978-0-306-48431-5. LCCN 95026038. OCLC 33443438. The relationships between education and mental abilities were also underscored by the results of an extensive study conducted in Peru (Stevenson, 1977). It was found that, regardless of race and social class, children who attended school performed better on four different learning and memory tests than those who did not attend. Not only did Stevenson find that education was positively related to all of the abilities that he studied, but education and culture also appeared to have a differentiating effect on the development of cognitive abilities. Thus, the correlations between tests of learning and memory were lower among children who attended school than among those who did not

Aiken, Lewis R. (31 May 2004) [Plenum Press 1996]. Assessment of Intellectual Functioning. Perspectives on Individual Differences (second (reprint) ed.). Springer. p. 267. ISBN 978-0-306-48431-5. LCCN 95026038. OCLC 33443438. Despite the arguments of Jensen (1980), Herrnstein and Murray (1994), and others, the question of racial differences in intelligence is far from settled. Research findings indicate that whites outscore blacks by approximately one standard deviation on both the WAIS-R (Reynolds et al., 1987) and the Stanford-Binet: Fourth Edition (Thorndike et al., 1986b). There is, however, a great deal of overlap between the IQ distributions of the two ethnic groups. According to Vernon (1985), 15 percent of blacks obtain higher IQs than the average white, and 15 percent of whites score lower than the average black.

Aiken, Lewis R. (31 May 2004) [Plenum Press 1996]. Assessment of Intellectual Functioning. Perspectives on Individual Differences (second (reprint) ed.). Springer. p. 276. ISBN 978-0-306-48431-5. LCCN 95026038. OCLC 33443438. To a large extent, the aggregation of research studies on individual differences in mental abilities has been unsystematic and too often a reflection of convenient measuring instruments and methodology rather than profound contemplation and sound research design. Because of social sanctions against moving people like chess pieces, the majority of the findings reported in this chapter and in other treatments of individual differences (e.g., Minton & Schneider, 1980; Tyler, 1965; Willerman, 1979) are the harvest of correlational rather than experimental investigations. Consequently, it has rarely been possible to attribute causal explanations to the results, and the debate over which came first, the chicken or egg, remains unresolved in most instances. Although these findings are difficult to interpret in any conclusive sense, they are provocative and must be taken into account by theorists and others who are concerned with the structure and dynamics of intelligence.

Aiken, Lewis R. (31 May 2004) [Plenum Press 1996]. Assessment of Intellectual Functioning. Perspectives on Individual Differences (second (reprint) ed.). Springer. p. 276. ISBN 978-0-306-48431-5. LCCN 95026038. OCLC 33443438. Scores on intelligence tests, and IQ scores in particular, depend on what test is administered. A Wechsler (WISC-III or WAIS-R) IQ of 130, for example, is not exactly equivalent to a Stanford-Binet or Otis-Lennon IQ of 130. A person's score on an IQ test varies somewhat from test to test. Consequently, whenever the IQ is reported, it is important to include the name of the test on which it was obtained.

Aiken, Lewis R. (31 May 2004) [Plenum Press 1996]. Assessment of Intellectual Functioning. Perspectives on Individual Differences (second (reprint) ed.). Springer. p. 280. ISBN 978-0-306-48431-5. LCCN 95026038. OCLC 33443438. Follow-up data revealed that, compared with average adults, they earned more degrees, attained higher occupational success and salaries, had equivalent or better personal and social adjustment, achieved greater marital success, and were physically healthier (Terman & Oden, 1947, 1959). The greater occupational success of these mentally gifted individuals appears, however, to have been due to their higher educational attainments rather than their higher IQs per se. When educational level was controlled for, IQ scores obtained in childhood had no relationship to occupational achievement.

Aiken, Lewis R. (31 May 2004) [Plenum Press 1996]. Assessment of Intellectual Functioning. Perspectives on Individual Differences (second (reprint) ed.). Springer. p. 280. ISBN 978-0-306-48431-5. LCCN 95026038. OCLC 33443438. Terman's findings of better adjustment and a lower rate of mental disorders among the mentally gifted did not go unchallenged. Hughes and Converse (1962) suggested that the fact that the children were selected initially on the basis of teachers' ratings as well as IQ may have biased the sample in favor of better-adjusted persons. Terman's gifted children also tended to be of higher socioeconomic status, which is associated with better adjustment. They were also unrepresentative of the U.S. population at the time: less than 1 percent were Asian, African, or Native Americans (Friedman et al., 1995).

Aiken, Lewis R. (31 May 2004) [Plenum Press 1996]. Assessment of Intellectual Functioning. Perspectives on Individual Differences (second (reprint) ed.). Springer. p. 281. ISBN 978-0-306-48431-5. LCCN 95026038. OCLC 33443438. Tests of intelligence or scholastic aptitude administered to school-age children usually do a fair job of predicting short-term school achievement and related criteria. These tests, however, were not designed to measure situational variables, lifelong determination, motivation, or nonscholastic talent of the sort that may influence creative performance. It is noteworthy that few, if any, of the intellectually gifted individuals studied by Terman attained the eminence of a Winston Churchill, an Albert Einstein, or an Ernest Hemingway. None was awarded a Nobel prize, and none became a famous composer, artist, or poet.

Aiken, Lewis R. (31 May 2004) [Plenum Press 1996]. Assessment of Intellectual Functioning. Perspectives on Individual Differences (second (reprint) ed.). Springer. p. 281. ISBN 978-0-306-48431-5. LCCN 95026038. OCLC 33443438. It is generally recognized that above-average intelligence is necessary but not sufficient for creative productivity. Beyond a minimum IQ of around 120, creative performance appears to depend more on motivation and special abilities than on general mental ability (MacKinnon, 1962). Therefore, investigations of creativity conducted since 1965 have focused on the identification of other cognitive and affective characteristics that distinguish creative from noncreative persons. For example, efforts have been made to develop measures of divergent, as opposed to convergent, thinking ability (Guilford, 1967). On measures of convergent thinking, such as problems of the sort found on intelligence tests, there is only one correct answer. In contrast, on tests of divergent thinking, examinees are presented with problems that have a number of possible solutions and are scored on the originality of their responses.

Aiken, Lewis R. (31 May 2004) [Plenum Press 1996]. Assessment of Intellectual Functioning. Perspectives on Individual Differences (second (reprint) ed.). Springer. p. 283–284. ISBN 978-0-306-48431-5. LCCN 95026038. OCLC 33443438. Because of the popular misconception that a person's IQ is absolutely constant from year to year and test to test, it is important to stress the fact that IQs are not fixed or unvarying numbers. All intelligence tests are less than perfectly reliable' consequently, a person's score on one of these tests will change somewhat with time and testing conditions. It is true, however, that, given a relatively stable life situation and optimal testing conditions, scores on the Stanford-Binet, the WISC, and comparable intelligence tests are fairly stable during the school years. IQs obtained on group tests tend to be less stable than those on individual tests during early and middle childhood, but they become more stable during adolescence. A child's IQ on an individual intelligence test varies about 5 points on the average, although changes of 20 points or more can occur.

Aiken, Lewis R. (31 May 2004) [Plenum Press 1996]. Assessment of Intellectual Functioning. Perspectives on Individual Differences (second (reprint) ed.). Springer. p. 284. ISBN 978-0-306-48431-5. LCCN 95026038. OCLC 33443438. Conclusions from earlier studies of changes in general intelligence with age were almost always based on cross-sectional data (Doppelt & Wallace, 1955; Jones & Conrad, 1933; Yerkes, 1921).

Aiken, Lewis R. (31 May 2004) [Plenum Press 1996]. Assessment of Intellectual Functioning. Perspectives on Individual Differences (second (reprint) ed.). Springer. p. 284. ISBN 978-0-306-48431-5. LCCN 95026038. OCLC 33443438. Cross-sectional investigations compare people of different cohorts, that is, groups of people brought up in different environmental circumstances. Differences between cohorts in factors such as educational opportunity, which is closely related to intelligence test scores, make it difficult to match people of different ages. Consequently, it is impossible to compare different age groups on intelligence without confounding the effects of education and other test-related experiences with age. Compared with the results of cross-sectional studies, longitudinal studies show a smaller decline in mental test scores with age.

Aiken, Lewis R. (31 May 2004) [Plenum Press 1996]. Assessment of Intellectual Functioning. Perspectives on Individual Differences (second (reprint) ed.). Springer. p. 284–285. ISBN 978-0-306-48431-5. LCCN 95026038. OCLC 33443438. The steady rise in average educational and socioeconomic levels of Americans during the twentieth century must be taken into account when interpreting the apparent age decline in mental abilities. Because intelligence test scores are positively related to both educational level and socioeconomic status, it is understandable how older adults, who grew up during less intellectually stimulating times and had less formal education, might make significantly lower test scores than younger adults. Several longitudinal investigations have found that although intelligence test scores tend to remain fairly stable or to decrease slightly after early adulthood, in some cases the scores increase. It can be argued that, because longitudinal studies of intelligence have most often been conducted on college graduates or other intellectually favored groups, the findings do not necessarily apply to the general population (Bayley & Oden, 1955; Campbell, 1965; Nisbet, 1957; Owens, 1953, 1966). However, longitudinal investigations with people of average intelligence (Charles & James, 1964; Eisdorfer, 1963; Tuddenham, Blumenkrantz, & Wilkin, 1968) and with noninstitutionalized mentally retarded adults (Baller, Charles, & Miller, 1967; Bell & Zubek, 1960) have yielded similar findings. Botwinick (1977) summarized the results of these studies as indicating that intelligence continues to increase by small amounts during early adulthood and reaches a plateau between the ages of 25 and 30. Subsequently, people who are below average or fail to make adequate use of their abilities decline somewhat in intelligence, but individuals of above-average intelligence show no decline or may even improve until age 50.

Aiken, Lewis R. (31 May 2004) [Plenum Press 1996]. Assessment of Intellectual Functioning. Perspectives on Individual Differences (second (reprint) ed.). Springer. p. 306. ISBN 978-0-306-48431-5. LCCN 95026038. OCLC 33443438. Rather than attempting to come up with a universally acceptable definition of intelligence, certain psychologists have suggested that it may be better to abandon the term altogether. If an alternative term is needed, one might use general mental ability, scholastic aptitude, or academic ability. The last two terms are a recognition of the fact that traditional intelligence tests are primarily predictors of success in school work.

Aiken, Lewis R. (31 May 2004) [Plenum Press 1996]. Assessment of Intellectual Functioning. Perspectives on Individual Differences (second (reprint) ed.). Springer. p. 306. ISBN 978-0-306-48431-5. LCCN 95026038. OCLC 33443438. Because of the controversy surrounding IQ and its implications of being a fixed measure of mental ability, even psychologists who have devoted their lives to the study of intelligence have expressed a willingness to abandon the concept of IQ (Vernon, 1979a). Certainly, the way in which IQs are now typically computed—as deviation scores—does not justify the term quotient, with its implication of being the result of a division process. If the term intelligence is retained, 'intelligence index' or 'intelligence estimate' would probably be more appropriate than 'intelligence quotient.'

Bazzett, Terence J. (2008). An Introduction to Behavior Genetics. Sunderland (MA): Sinauer. pp. 241–242. ISBN 978-0-87893-049-4. Taken together, these findings suggest that about 50% of the variation seen in IQ scores is accounted for by genetics and a nearly equal percentage is accounted for by environment. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Borland, James H. (21 August 2012). "Chapter 8: Problematizing Gifted Education". In Callahan, Carolyn M.; Hertberg-Davis, Holly L. (eds.). Fundamentals of Gifted Education: Considering Multiple Perspectives. Routledge. p. 74. ISBN 978-1-136-94643-1. Unlike, say, that planet Uranus, which has existed much longer than we have as a species, but remained undiscovered until William Herschel observed it in 1781 (see Holmes, 2008, for a fascinating account), gifted students as a distinct school sub-population only came into existence when certain historical forces in the second decade of the 20th century (including compulsory education laws, increased immigration, and especially the advent and widespread adoption of mental testing in schools) created a situation in which educators and psychologists felt a need for an organizing principle, a construct, that allowed them to make sense of observed phenomena (e.g., variance in scores on mental tests).

Borsboom, Denny (2005). Measuring the Mind: Conceptual Issues in Contemporary Psychometrics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 90. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.2007.00053_1.x. ISBN 978-0-521-84463-5. Representational measurement is called axiomatic, because its main theoretical strategy is (1) to specify certain axioms with respect to objects and relations between them, (2) to prove mathematically that, given these relations, a homomorphic representation is possible (this is done in a representation theorem), and (3) to show under which transformations of the scale values this homomorphism is preserved (this is done in a uniqueness theorem). The latter proof characterizes the transformations of the assigned scale values under which the representation is preserved. Uniqueness results form the basis for the well-known 'levels of measurement' introduced by Stevens (1946). If the structure of the representation is invariant up to all one-one transformations, we have a nominal scale; if it is invariant up to all monotonic transformations, we have an ordinal scale; if it is invariant up to all linear transformations, we have an interval scale; and if it is invariant up to all affine transformations, we have a ratio scale. These four scale types do not exhaust the possible scale types (Krantz, Luce, Suppes, and Tversky, 1971), but will do for the present exposition. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Borsboom, Denny (2005). Measuring the Mind: Conceptual Issues in Contemporary Psychometrics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 97. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.2007.00053_1.x. ISBN 978-0-521-84463-5. The third axiom is the axiom of double cancellation. This axiom tests a consequence of additivity. In order to explain it, it is useful to first consider a property called independence. This is is not strictly taken to be an axiom, because it is a consequence of the other axioms, but a discussion is useful because it brings out the similarity between additive conjoint measurement and the Rasch model, where the independence condition is also important (it is similar to what Rasch (1960) called parameter separability). {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Borsboom, Denny (2005). Measuring the Mind: Conceptual Issues in Contemporary Psychometrics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 100. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.2007.00053_1.x. ISBN 978-0-521-84463-5. The invention of conjoint measurement is, without a doubt, one of the most important theoretical contributions in the history of psychology. It shows that fundamental measurement does not require a concrete concatenation operation, and in doing so provides a justification for psychological measurement that could never have been produced within Campbell's traditional account. It provides psychology with at least the theoretical possiblility of a system for measurement that is on equal footing with the ones in physics. For the way subjective loudness could be measured and quantified is exactly the same way in which density can be measured and quantified. The representationalists thus showed that the conclusion reached by the commission installed by the British Association for the Advancement of Science was false: fundamental measurement is, in principle, possible in psychology. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Boyle, Gregory J.; Saklofske, Donald H.; Matthews, Gerald (5 March 2012). "Introduction: Intelligence Measurement and Assessment". In Boyle, Gregory J; Saklofske, Donald H; Matthews, Gerald (eds.). Psychological Assessment. Vol. 1: Intelligence Assessment. SAGE Publications. pp. xiii–xxix, xiii. ISBN 978-0-85702-270-7. Retrieved 4 September 2013. During the middle ages, various examples can be found that illustrate attempts to measure intelligence and even further, use this information to determine one's competency in relation to criminal charges. In the eighteenth century, Itard's famous case study of the "Wild Boy of Aveyron" provided further challenges for assessing intellectual functioning. Moreover, the development by Seguin of a test employing a form board to measure intelligence in persons with mental retardation was observed in the early nineteenth century, along with Esquirol's proposal of a classification for mental retardation in contrast to mental illness. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Boyle, Gregory J.; Saklofske, Donald H.; Matthews, Gerald (5 March 2012). "Introduction: Intelligence Measurement and Assessment". In Boyle, Gregory J; Saklofske, Donald H; Matthews, Gerald (eds.). Psychological Assessment. Vol. 1: Intelligence Assessment. SAGE Publications. pp. xiii–xxix, xxiv. ISBN 978-0-85702-270-7. Retrieved 4 September 2013. Another practical demand that moved the assessment of intelligence from schools into applications with adults came about with the event of World War I. The need to screen recruits for selection into the military led Yerkes and others to develop the Army Alpha and Beta tests. Two advances stand out: not only were these group administered tests but they could be used with adults who were either literate or illiterate by essentially removing the language component for presenting and responding to the test items. The success of both the Binet and Army Alpha and Beta tests demonstrated that intelligence, even as an elusive latent trait, could be measured and the results useful for selection, classification, and placement decisions. Although there was an ongoing debate reflected in the writings of Spearman, Thurstone, and Thorndike as to whether intelligence was best represented as a general mental ability or 'g', or as a number of specific and essentially uncorrelated factors, these tests demonstrated that the construct of intelligence could be measured, the measures had psychometric integrity (e.g., reliability and validity) and with careful standardization, norms could be presented allowing comparisons of an individual's score to the larger population or particular subgroups. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Boyle, Gregory J.; Saklofske, Donald H.; Matthews, Gerald (5 March 2012). "Introduction: Intelligence Measurement and Assessment". In Boyle, Gregory J; Saklofske, Donald H; Matthews, Gerald (eds.). Psychological Assessment. Vol. 1: Intelligence Assessment. SAGE Publications. pp. xiii–xxix, xxv. ISBN 978-0-85702-270-7. Retrieved 4 September 2013. With the publication of Wechsler's first test in 1939 reflecting current theory, and research combined with careful standardisation and supporting psychometric data, the future of intelligence tests and testing was firmly established. At the same time, new theories of intelligence were necessitating a different look at intelligence so that the methods of, for example, Piaget and Vygotsky or the more neuropsychological driven model described by Luria, were challenging the more 'g' based tests of Binet and Wechsler. Later Guilford, Gardner, Sternberg, Das, and others would pose further challenges to the definition and assessment of intelligence. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Boyle, Gregory J.; Saklofske, Donald H.; Matthews, Gerald (5 March 2012). "Introduction: Intelligence Measurement and Assessment". In Boyle, Gregory J; Saklofske, Donald H; Matthews, Gerald (eds.). Psychological Assessment. Vol. 1: Intelligence Assessment. SAGE Publications. pp. xiii–xxix, xxvi. ISBN 978-0-85702-270-7. Retrieved 4 September 2013. At the same time, we have become very aware that intelligence is both a real but in part also a human defined construct. Different cultures hold different views on the significance or importance of intelligence and in turn, how much it is valued. And while research has shown that the brain is the 'seat' of intelligence, we are also acutely aware of how environments shape intelligence, both in content and how intelligence is best assessed. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Boyle, Gregory J.; Saklofske, Donald H.; Matthews, Gerald (5 March 2012). "Introduction: Intelligence Measurement and Assessment". In Boyle, Gregory J; Saklofske, Donald H; Matthews, Gerald (eds.). Psychological Assessment. Vol. 1: Intelligence Assessment. SAGE Publications. pp. xiii–xxix, xxvii. ISBN 978-0-85702-270-7. Retrieved 4 September 2013. Raymond Cattell (1940) argued many years ago for efforts to develop culture free/fair tests because of the lack of portability of tests across different cultures. He led the way in attempting to define and develop tests where the effects of cultural and linguistic differences could be parsed out. However, this is a daunting task as pointed out by Wicherts et al. (2010) where tests such as the Raven's matrices, considered by many to be a nonverbal tests of spatial reasoning and not particularly impacted by culture etc., do not necessarily function as a measure of intelligence in sub-Saharan Africa. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Boyle, Gregory J.; Saklofske, Donald H.; Matthews, Gerald (5 March 2012). "Introduction: Intelligence Measurement and Assessment". In Boyle, Gregory J; Saklofske, Donald H; Matthews, Gerald (eds.). Psychological Assessment. Vol. 1: Intelligence Assessment. SAGE Publications. pp. xiii–xxix, xxviii. ISBN 978-0-85702-270-7. Retrieved 4 September 2013. The question of whether human kind is becoming more intelligent as a function of such factors as improved nutrition, better health, and increased education has become known as the Flynn Effect. Flynn has claimed that intelligence has been increasing about 3 IQ points per decade in developed countries. In the article by Flynn and Weiss (20007), it is argued that this claim is supported when comparisons are simulated between the earlier and current Wechsler tests for children in the USA (WISC-III and WISC-IV). However, Kaufman (2010) has challenged Flynn's interpretation of changes in IQ scores in the article reprinted here but also in other articles published in a special issue of the Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment in 2010. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Boyle, Gregory J.; Saklofske, Donald H.; Matthews, Gerald (5 March 2012). "Introduction: Intelligence Measurement and Assessment". In Boyle, Gregory J; Saklofske, Donald H; Matthews, Gerald (eds.). Psychological Assessment. Vol. 1: Intelligence Assessment. SAGE Publications. pp. xiii–xxix, xxix. ISBN 978-0-85702-270-7. Retrieved 4 September 2013. In Fact, intelligence is correlated with more human behaviours and outcomes than any other factor studied by psychologists. Theoretical advances are complimented by an ever growing volume of research studies since the Neisseer et al. article was first published. Moreso, the sophistication of current psychological tests is indeed impressive (Meyer et al., 2001). Yet, there is much that remains to be 'discovered', and in the process, it will become ever more necessary to address the human issues that are raised by a construct as complex, significant, and controversial as intelligence. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Callahan, Carolyn M.; Hertberg-Davis, Holly L. (21 August 2012). "Chapter 2: Beliefs, Philosophies, and Definitions". In Callahan, Carolyn M.; Hertberg-Davis, Holly L. (eds.). Fundamentals of Gifted Education: Considering Multiple Perspectives. Routledge. p. 14. ISBN 978-1-136-94643-1. The construct of giftedness has not been solidified with any agreed-upon specific definition. The range of beliefs about 'who is gifted' evolves from multiple belief systems and philosophies and can be characterized as broad or narrow; from restrictive and exclusive to open and inclusive, conservative or liberal, and theoretical or atheoretical.

Callahan, Carolyn M.; Hertberg-Davis, Holly L. (21 August 2012). "Chapter 2: Beliefs, Philosophies, and Definitions". In Callahan, Carolyn M.; Hertberg-Davis, Holly L. (eds.). Fundamentals of Gifted Education: Considering Multiple Perspectives. Routledge. p. 15. ISBN 978-1-136-94643-1. The work of Terman, however, while certainly extensive and very influential, was but a small part of the emerging interest in studying and defining giftedness. Many of the alternate definitions offered during the same era were broader in conception. During the 1920s, Hollingworth (often only noted for studying students with exceptionally high IQ scores) reported on the possibility that students 'may be far more excellent in some capacities than others' (1926, p. 202); Bentley (1937) called for recognition of and advanced curriculum for students who have aptitude in specific areas such as mathematics, music, or art. Witty, in 1958, developed a definition that not only recognized intellectual abilities, but also special talents in art, writing, and social leadership.

Callahan, Carolyn M.; Hertberg-Davis, Holly L. (21 August 2012). "Chapter 2: Beliefs, Philosophies, and Definitions". In Callahan, Carolyn M.; Hertberg-Davis, Holly L. (eds.). Fundamentals of Gifted Education: Considering Multiple Perspectives. Routledge. p. 15. ISBN 978-1-136-94643-1. Perhaps the alternate definitions of intelligence as multifaceted which were offered by Thorndike and his associates (Thorndike, Bergman, Cobb, & Woodyard, 1926) or Spearman (1927) at this time did not achieve such widespread attention and acceptance in definitions of giftedness because they lacked both accompanying standardized assessment tools and corresponding study of the population defined as gifted.

Callahan, Carolyn M.; Hertberg-Davis, Holly L. (21 August 2012). "Chapter 2: Beliefs, Philosophies, and Definitions". In Callahan, Carolyn M.; Hertberg-Davis, Holly L. (eds.). Fundamentals of Gifted Education: Considering Multiple Perspectives. Routledge. p. 16. ISBN 978-1-136-94643-1. In the early 1970s, a federally sanctioned study of the state of gifted education led to the publication of what came to be called the Marland Report (1972). This report included the first 'federal definition' of giftedness. The definition represented and inclusive approach to defining giftedness by designating the categories of general intellectual ability, specific academic aptitude, creative or productive thinking, leadership ability, visual and performing arts, and psychomotor ability as the targets for identifying gifted students. It further specified the target population as the upper 3 percent to 5 percent of school-aged children. The definition recognized the influence of Terman (general intellectual ability), Thorndike and Spearman (specific academic aptitude), Guilford's address (creative or productive thinking), and the work of early scholars like Hollingworth, Witty, and Bentley in expanding the definition to include the visual and performing arts. This definition quickly became the policy-level definition adopted by many states and school districts.

Callahan, Carolyn M.; Hertberg-Davis, Holly L. (21 August 2012). "Chapter 32: Heterogeneity among the Gifted". In Callahan, Carolyn M.; Hertberg-Davis, Holly L. (eds.). Fundamentals of Gifted Education: Considering Multiple Perspectives. Routledge. p. 329. ISBN 978-1-136-94643-1. It is a common, and easily understandable, belief that gifted students are a homogeneous population; however, thoughtful reflection will quickly lead to a very different perspective. While the screening and identification of gifted students does somewhat reduce the degree to which the resulting group varies, variability is not entirely erased. Like all students, identified gifted students still exist along continua of aptitudes and achievement (albeit within a smaller range) in areas of interest and passion, in preferred learning modes, and in the area of social and emotional adjustment.

Callahan, Carolyn M.; Hertberg-Davis, Holly L. (21 August 2012). "Chapter 32: Heterogeneity among the Gifted". In Callahan, Carolyn M.; Hertberg-Davis, Holly L. (eds.). Fundamentals of Gifted Education: Considering Multiple Perspectives. Routledge. p. 330. ISBN 978-1-136-94643-1. While there are differences among subgroups of students identified as gifted, there are also differences among students in the general population whose talents are never addressed because we fail even to recognize that talent. Considerable attention has been directed at the under-representation of these students in programs for the gifted. Among the groups most often recognized as deserving of special attention for identification, talent development, and subsequent adjustments in curriculum are African American, Latino/Latina, and twice-exceptional learners.

Castles, Elaine E. (6 June 2012). Inventing Intelligence. ABC-CLIO. p. 10. ISBN 978-1-4408-0338-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. In my experience, one of the most disturbing casualties of parental anxiety about IQ scores has been simple, basic honesty. Some desperate parents bring their children to unscrupulous psychologists who promise to document extraordinary IQ scores, or conversely, to diagnose a learning disability or attentional disorder that will grant them special testing accommodations. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Castles, Elaine E. (6 June 2012). Inventing Intelligence. ABC-CLIO. p. 15. ISBN 978-1-4408-0338-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. We take it for granted that individuals possess different amounts of intelligence and that those with the highest IQs achieve—and in general deserve—the most success in life. And, we assume, people have always thought this way. [Para] But have people in all times and in all places actually valued intelligence in the same way that we do today? The answer is a resounding no. The concept of intelligence, in the sense that we now understand the term, is actually what historian Lorraine Dashton has termed a "brashing modern notion." (citing "The Naturalized Female Intellect" Science in Context 5 (1992):211) In fact, our modern conception of intelligence as a largely inborn trait along which people can be rank-ordered did not begin to emerge until the latter half of the nineteenth century. ... " {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Castles, Elaine E. (6 June 2012). Inventing Intelligence. ABC-CLIO. p. 22. ISBN 978-1-4408-0338-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. And what is that makes Marilyn vos Savant so uniquely qualified to answer such questions? There is only one reason: she is listed in the Guinness Book of World Records as having the highest IQ ever recorded. Never mind that this record is based on a nonstandardized test put out by an obscure group known as Mega, supposedly the world's most selective organization of geniuses. Ignore the fact that test scores at the extreme ends of any distribution are notoriously unreliable. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Castles, Elaine E. (6 June 2012). Inventing Intelligence. ABC-CLIO. p. 32. ISBN 978-1-4408-0338-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. It was Spencer, in the later versions of his immensely popular Principles of Psychology, who popularized the use of the word 'intelligence' in its modern evolutionary and biological sense. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Castles, Elaine E. (6 June 2012). Inventing Intelligence. ABC-CLIO. p. 65. ISBN 978-1-4408-0338-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. It should be clear by this point in our discussion that, far from being as 'universal and ancient as any understanding about the state of being human,' as the authors of The Bell Curve so confidently asserted, the concept of intelligence is indeed a 'brashing modern notion.' (citing "The Naturalized Female Intellect" Science in Context 5 (1992):211) {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Castles, Elaine E. (6 June 2012). Inventing Intelligence. ABC-CLIO. pp. 65–66. ISBN 978-1-4408-0338-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. In his 1859 text The Emotions and the Will, for example, psychologist Alexander Bain lamented that 'to come now to Mental Qualities, there is an almost total absence of numerical or measured estimates.' {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Castles, Elaine E. (6 June 2012). Inventing Intelligence. ABC-CLIO. pp. 68–69. ISBN 978-1-4408-0338-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. Commenting on the state of the discipline at the turn of the [nineteenth and twentieth] century, Charles Spearman remarked that "at that time, the 'mental tests,' initiated by the genius of Galton and taken up with characteristic energy in the United States, had so lamentably disappointed expectations as to have sunk into a general by-word of scorn.' (citing Spearman, "The Measurement of Intelligence," Eugenics Review 6 (1915):312) {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Castles, Elaine E. (6 June 2012). Inventing Intelligence. ABC-CLIO. p. 71. ISBN 978-1-4408-0338-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. Binet termed his new scale a test of intelligence. It is interesting to note that the primary connotation of the French term l'intelligence in Binet's time is what we might call "school brightness," and Binet himself claimed no function for his scales beyond that of measuring academic aptitude. Unlike many of his contemporaries, he did not believe that heredity was the primary determinant of test performance. Comparing the test scores of two individuals, Binet asserted, was meaningful only if they had been provided equal educational opportunities and environmental stimulation. (citing White, "Conceptual Foundations of IQ Testing" Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 6 (2000):33–43) {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Castles, Elaine E. (6 June 2012). Inventing Intelligence. ABC-CLIO. p. 74. ISBN 978-1-4408-0338-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. Writing in the Journal of Educational Psychology in 1912, psychologist J. Carleton Bell observed, "Perhaps no device pertaining to education has ever risen to such sudden prominence in public interest throughout the world as the Binet-Simon measuring scale of intelligence." And indeed, within a few years of Binet's death, his new test had taken American social science by storm. Psychologist Henry H. Goddard had introduced Binet's original 1905 scale to American professionals in a November 1908 article in the Training School Bulletin. He followed in 1909 with a translation of Binet's 1908 revision and in 1910 with a famous paper describing his initial research with the Binet at the Vineland Training School. (This was, by the way, the same paper in which Goddard coined the term "moron" to describe individuals with mild intellectual disabilities.) (citing "The Binet and Simon Tests of Intellectual Capacity," Training School Bulletin 5, no. 10 (December 1908): 3-9; Goddard, "A Measuring Scale for Intelligence," Training School Bulletin 6, no. 11 (January 1910): 146-55; Goddard, "Four Hundred Feeble-Minded Children"; Carson, "Talents, Intelligence, and the Constructions of Human Difference"; Zenderland, Measuring Minds. ) {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Castles, Elaine E. (6 June 2012). Inventing Intelligence. ABC-CLIO. p. 75. ISBN 978-1-4408-0338-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. Many, if not all, of the critics' original objections were resolved in 1916, when Lewis Terman published the first major revision of the Binet Scales. Terman was a promising young psychologist whose interest in intelligence and its measurement had been piqued by Goddard's original reports. When he arrived at Stanford in 1910 to accept a faculty position, he immediately began work on his own revision of the original test. By 1916, Terman had completed a second, much more rigorous revision of the Binet Scales. This new test, known as the Stanford-Binet, quickly displaced earlier, less formal revisions of Binet's measure. Within a few years, the Stanford-Binet had become the gold standard of American IQ testing—a distinction it was to hold for decades. (citing "The Binet-Simon Scale for Measuring Intelligence: Impressions Gained by Its Application upon Four Hundred Non-selected Children," Psychological Clinic 5 (1911): 199-206) {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Castles, Elaine E. (6 June 2012). Inventing Intelligence. ABC-CLIO. p. 96. ISBN 978-1-4408-0338-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. that 'the time is probably not distant when every wise parent will apply [the Binet] to his own children' and use the results to direct their educational and vocational choices. Experts urged parents to keep a regular record of their children's IQ test scores and often provided do-it-yourself test questions for their convenience. In 1915, for example, the Chicago Daily Tribune printed a copy of the items from the Binet along with the following advice to parents. 'Here's a page full of information which will enable TRIBUNE readers to keep track, year by year, of the mental development of their children. Cut out the page—save it.' By the 1920s, the concept of intelligence testing was no longer a mere scientific curiosity; it had become an integral part of American culture. (citing "Give Your Children a Chance," 469) (citing "Here's Your Chance to Test Your Mental Development according to Famous Binet System," Chicago Daily Tribune, April 29, 1915, 5.) {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Castles, Elaine E. (6 June 2012). Inventing Intelligence. ABC-CLIO. p. 99. ISBN 978-1-4408-0338-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. The author of a 1923 article in American Magazine was not alone in admitting that 'every time anybody mentions an intelligence test, I want to take it! All of us do.' Many of the articles about IQ testing appearing in the popular press printed sample questions or test excerpts that readers could use to test themselves or their children. As the author of an article published in Survey in 1922 remarked, 'You had only to open your Sunday newspaper to find a new test to try out on the members of your family.' (The proliferation of do-it-yourself psychological tests on the internet today testifies to the continuing power of this natural curiosity.) (citing "Test Yourself and See How You Compare with College Students," American Magazine 96 (1923):50.) (citing "Is America Feeble-Minded?" Survey 49 (1922): 79. ) {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Castles, Elaine E. (6 June 2012). Inventing Intelligence. ABC-CLIO. p. 102. ISBN 978-1-4408-0338-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. these groups, he was convinced, were the primary cause of the 'enormous amount of crime, pauperism, and industrial inefficiency' then plaguing the nation. As we have seen, it was to describe this supposed danger that he coined the infamous term 'menace of the feeble-minded.' Terman uncritically accepted Carl Brigham's claims that the army testing data demonstrated the inferior intelligence of non-Nordic immigrants, and he used these data to advocate vociferously for the restriction of immigration. His concern about the threat posed by individuals of low intelligence (whether immigrant or native-born) also led Terman to join many of his fellow reformers as an active member of the Human Betterment Foundation, an organization founded to promote eugenic sterilization of the feebleminded. He wrote several popular articles in support of this cause, proudly claiming in one of them that intelligence testing served as 'the beacon light of the eugenics movement.' (citing "The Measurement of Intelligence (1916)" in The Bell Curve Debate: History, Documents, Opinions, ed. Russell Jacoby and Naomi Glauberman (New York, NY: Times Books, 1995), 545. ) (citing For a history of the phrase, see J. W. Trent, Jr., Inventing the Feeble Mind: A History of Mental Retardation in the United States (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1994). ) {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Castles, Elaine E. (6 June 2012). Inventing Intelligence. ABC-CLIO. p. 105. ISBN 978-1-4408-0338-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. Educators use these scores (or their close equivalents) to track public school students into different programs or levels of instruction. The fabled SAT controls access to elite colleges, universities, and professional schools—and by extension to lucrative employment opportunities. At the other end of the spectrum, low IQ scores can entitle individuals to disability benefits and services. And since the 2002 Supreme Court decision in Atkins v. Virginia, which found the execution of people with mental retardation to be unconstitutional, such scores can literally determine whether a defendant convicted of a capital crime lives or dies. (citing Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002). ) {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Castles, Elaine E. (6 June 2012). Inventing Intelligence. ABC-CLIO. p. 106. ISBN 978-1-4408-0338-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. Alfred Binet himself would have undoubtedly felt right at home had he been able to take a peek at a modern individually administered IQ test. In fact, the venerable Stanford-Binet, now in its fifth edition, still contains many items similar to Binet's own. Like students in 1905, modern Binet test-takers are asked, for example, to define words, copy geometric designs, remember strings of numbers, and answer questions requiring commonsense judgment. But though the Stanford-Binet is still a respected measure and is used at least occasionally by many psychologists, in recent decades it has been largely supplanted in clinical practice by the various Wechsler Scales. (at end note: There are other well-regarded, individually administered tests of intelligence, including the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abilities and the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children. However, these measures are used much less frequently and generally only in school settings. ) {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Castles, Elaine E. (6 June 2012). Inventing Intelligence. ABC-CLIO. p. 109. ISBN 978-1-4408-0338-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. Given the time and energy devoted to the controversy, one would think that participants could have at least agreed about what IQ tests measured. But even on this fundamental issue, common ground was lacking. In 1921, a symposium of psychologists assembled by Edward Thorndike offered as many definitions of intelligence as there were contributors to the discussion. These experienced testing experts lacked a shared understanding of even their most basic terms. (Interestingly, in 1986 a similar panel convened by eminent psychologist Robert Sternberg achieved little greater agreement.) (citing "Intelligence and Its Measurement: A Symposium," Journal of Educational Psychology 12 (1921): 123-47, 195-216; Robert J. Sternberg and Cynthia A. Berg, "Quantitative Integration: Definitions of Intelligence: A Comparison of the 1921 and 1986 Symposia," in What is Intelligence? Contemporary Viewpoints on Its Nature and Definition (Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing, 1986), 155-62 ) (citing "Testing the Human Mind," Atlantic Monthly 131 (1923): 370; Walter Lippmann, "The Abuse of the Tests," in The IQ Controversy: Critical Readings, ed. N. J. Bloch and Gerald Dworkin (New York, NY: Pantheon Books, 1976), 19. ) {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Castles, Elaine E. (6 June 2012). Inventing Intelligence. ABC-CLIO. p. 111. ISBN 978-1-4408-0338-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. Evidence of this dramatic shift in perspective can be seen as early as 1934. In a study conducted that year, only 4 percent of the 100 eminent psychologists, sociologists, and educators surveyed were willing to state categorically that genetically based racial disparities in innate intelligence had been experimentally proven (although 46% cautioned that such differences remained a reasonable possibility). During the course of the 1930s, several prominent professional organizations, including the American Psychological Association's Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues (in 1938) and the American Anthropological Association (in 1939), issued statements supporting environmental explanations for racial differences in psychological characteristics. (citing "The Conclusions of Scientists Relative to Racial Differences, " Journal of Negro Education 3 (1934): 494-512. ) (citing "18 Social Scientists Discuss: Does Race Really Make a Difference in Intelligence?" U.S. New and World Report, October 26, 1956, 74-76. ) (citing "Racial and National Differences in Mental Traits," in Encyclopaedia of Educational Research, rev. ed., ed. Walter S. Monroe (New York, NY: Macmillan, 1952), 953. ) {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Castles, Elaine E. (6 June 2012). Inventing Intelligence. ABC-CLIO. p. 114. ISBN 978-1-4408-0338-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. A backlash against the egalitarian ethos and somewhat naive optimism of the 1960s and early 1970s was probably inevitable. In 1969, as the civil rights movement was veering into a harder-edged black nationalism, psychologist Arthur Jensen ignited a bombshell by publishing an article in the Harvard Educational Review that opened with these provocative words: 'Compensatory education has been tried and it apparently has failed.' He went on to add that 'we are left with ... various pieces of evidence, no one of which is definitive alone, but which, when viewed all together make it a not unreasonable hypothesis that genetic factors are strongly implicated in the average Negro-white intelligence difference.' (citing "How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?" Harvard Educational Review 39 (1969): 2, 82. ) {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Castles, Elaine E. (6 June 2012). Inventing Intelligence. ABC-CLIO. p. 115. ISBN 978-1-4408-0338-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. With unsettling frequency, in fact, the level of debate about intelligence and its measurement has degenerated from passionate advocacy to blatant personal attack. One particularly egregious example comes from conservative psychologist Helmuth Nyborg, who wrote in a 2003 volume of papers intended as a tribute to Arthur Jensen, 'One of the parties [to the IQ controversy] is fairly well characterized by a series of brutal and merciless ad hominem attacks by a group of aggressive and ruthless ideologues, moved more by self-assumed moral authority than truth ...' {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Castles, Elaine E. (6 June 2012). Inventing Intelligence. ABC-CLIO. p. 120. ISBN 978-1-4408-0338-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. The authors of The Bell Curve, for example, interpreted their research as demonstrating that 'intelligence...is...a force for maintaining a civil society.' Eminent historian Richard Hofstadter has claimed that 'intellectuals are properly more responsive to ... values [such as reason and justice] than others.' Analyzing our propensity to imbue highly intelligent individuals with an entire panoply of positive qualities, Leslie Margolin has defined the cultural understanding of the gifted child in modern American society as 'goodness personified.' These starkly opposed images of the 'menace of the feebleminded' versus the 'personification of goodness' remain powerful symbols of the link that we in Western society have made between intelligence and virtue. (citing Herrnstein and Murray, Bell Curve, 254; Richard Hofstadter, Anti-Intellectualism in American Life (New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1962), 29; Leslie Margolin, Goodness Personified: The Emergence of Gifted Children (New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter, 1994). ) {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Castles, Elaine E. (6 June 2012). Inventing Intelligence. ABC-CLIO. p. 123. ISBN 978-1-4408-0338-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. And so not surprisingly, IQ test content is still strongly school related. Even Alan Kaufman, one of the most eminent modern testing gurus, readily concedes this point. Intelligence tests, he wrote in 1994, are 'really a kind of achievement test . . . a measure of past accomplishments that is predictive of success in traditional school subjects.' (citing Alan S. Kaufman, Intelligent Testing with the WISC-III (New York, NY; John Wiley and Sons, 1994), 6. ) {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Castles, Elaine E. (6 June 2012). Inventing Intelligence. ABC-CLIO. p. 125. ISBN 978-1-4408-0338-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. There is broad agreement that IQ scores account for about 25 percent of the individual variation in school grades and years of schooling completed—a very respectable correlation in the field of psychology. (Ulric Neisser, Gwyneth Boodoo, Thomas J. Bouchard, Jr., A. Wade Boykin, Nathan Brody, Stephen J. Ceci, Diane F. Halpern, John C. Loehlin, Robert Perloff, Robert J. Sternberg, and Susana Urbina, "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns," American Psychologist 51 (1996): 77-101. ) {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Castles, Elaine E. (6 June 2012). Inventing Intelligence. ABC-CLIO. p. 125. ISBN 978-1-4408-0338-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. And the more distant the relationship between an outcome and educational status, the lower the predictive value of IQ test scores becomes. For example, psychometric intelligence accounts for an average of 16 percent of the observed variation in occupational status (values range from 4 to 60 percent, with the stronger relationships found only for those engaged in highly complex, academically demanding jobs). IQ scores explain no more than 4 to 18 perecent of individual differences in income. Recent studies demonstrate that inheritance of IQ accounts for a mere 2 percent of the intergenerational transmission of socioeconomic status; parental wealth, race, and schooling are all of considerably more importance, as are a number of personality and motivational characteristics. The relationship between IQ and other socially valued behaviors is almost minisule, accounting, for example, for less than 4 percent of differences in delinquency and crime and less than 2 percent in divorce and unemployment. So, do we prefer to focus on the 2 to 25 percent of individual variation in life success that appears to be accounted for by psychometric intelligence or on the 75 to 98 percent due to other factors? Personal, social, and political values rather than hard, cold scientific facts are likely to determine our answers to this question. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Castles, Elaine E. (6 June 2012). Inventing Intelligence. ABC-CLIO. pp. 129–130. ISBN 978-1-4408-0338-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. Children in a remote African village, for example, may be deficient in book smarts, but they are probably very knowledgeable about the local plants and animals that provide their daily food. Are we to conclude, solely on the basis of conventional IQ scores, that these young villagers are somehow less intelligent than American school children? [para] Most modern researchers would agree that the answer to this question is no. For this reason, many of them have put considerable energy into developing tests that they claim are culture fair—that is, measures (many of them nonverbal) whose content does not require familiarity with the dominant Western culture. But even if the daunting theoretical and practical difficulties inherent in such an enterprise could be overcome, a more fundamental problem remains. As we have seen, different cultures of necessity define intelligent behavior in different ways, their perspectives deeply rooted in the values, thinking styles, and environmental challenges unique to each society. Behavior that members of one cultural group view as intelligent might well be perceived by members of another as foolish, misguided, or even antisocial. And so, as testing expert Alexander Wesman pointed out as early as 1968, the 'ingenious mining methods' that cross-cultural investigators have used in their attempts to discover 'the "native intelligence" [that] lies buried in pure form deep in the individual' are in fact 'not ingenious, but ingenuous.' (citing "Intelligent Testing," American Psychologist 23 (1968): 267-74. On issues in cross-cultural assessment of intelligence, see Patricia M. Greenfield, "You Can't Take It with You: Why Ability Assessment Don't Cross Cultures," American Psychologist 52 (1997): 1115-24: Sternberg, "Implicit Theories of Intelligence as Exemplar Stories"; Etienne Benson, "Intelligence across Cultures," Monitor on Psychology 34, no. 2 (2003): 56-58. ) {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Castles, Elaine E. (6 June 2012). Inventing Intelligence. ABC-CLIO. p. 135. ISBN 978-1-4408-0338-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. Probably the most contentious of the issues fueling the IQ Wars is the extent to which heredity determines psychometric intelligence. The emotion with which even supposedly hardheaded scientists approach this question suggests that its social and political implications are far more potent than its actual scientific importance. (citing Because we have yet to develop any reliable measures of more broadly defined adaptive intelligence, this discussion of necessity excludes any exploration of possible genetic effects on its expression. In his famous studies of Hereditary Genius, published in 1869, Sir Francis Galton did in fact attempt to demonstrate the hereditary nature of broadly defined intelligence; in the absence of any objective measure of IQ, he used eminence as his mark of genius. Unfortunately, Galton completely ignored any possible contribution of social status or other environmental factors to eminence in Victorian England. Therefore, although fascinating as social history, his study is virtually worthless as science. Sir Francis Galton, Hereditary Genius: An Inquiry into Its Laws and Consequences (New York, NY: St. Martin's Press, 1978). ) {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Castles, Elaine E. (6 June 2012). Inventing Intelligence. ABC-CLIO. p. 137. ISBN 978-1-4408-0338-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. Let us start with the hereditarians. They draw on three main types of evidence to support their position. First, research suggests that heredity accounts for somewhere between 20 and 80 percent of the variation in IQ scores within groups, at least within the range of Western cultures that have been studied. (Most hereditarians argue for values at the higher rather than the lower end of this range.) Therefore, they maintain, it is logical to assume that genetic factors account for at least some of the difference between racial and ethnic groups as well. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Castles, Elaine E. (6 June 2012). Inventing Intelligence. ABC-CLIO. p. 138. ISBN 978-1-4408-0338-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. Although it seems compelling at first glance, the hereditarians' first argument is actually based on a logical fallacy. The existence of genetic variation within groups in no way proves genetic differences between groups. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Castles, Elaine E. (6 June 2012). Inventing Intelligence. ABC-CLIO. p. 138. ISBN 978-1-4408-0338-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. But, argue the hereditarians, we already know that there are genetic differences between the races. After all, members of different racial groups do look different, and we agree that physical traits like eye and skin color, hair color and texture, facial features, and body shape are largely under genetic control. These particular characteristics, however, are generally determined by only a few discrete genes. Intelligence, on the other hand, is highly complex and involves many different brain functions; its genetic underpinnings must be multidetermined as well. Regardless of race, human beings have in common about 99.9 percent of their DNA; indeed, many researchers now argue that there is no genetic basis at all for our socially constructed categories of race. (citing David C. Rowe, 'Under the Skin: On the Impartial Treatment of Genetic and Environmental Hypotheses of Racial Differences,' American Psychologist 60 (2005): 60-70.) {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Castles, Elaine E. (6 June 2012). Inventing Intelligence. ABC-CLIO. p. 139. ISBN 978-1-4408-0338-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. Psychologist Claude Steele has approached this issue from a different and very interesting perspective. Around the world, he reports, 'caste-like minorities' (for example, the Maoris in New Zealand, Oriental Jews in Israel, the Bakaru in Japan, and the Harijans, or untouchables, of India) score about 15 points lower on IQ tests than do memebers of the dominant group. (Caste-like minorities are groups whose members are shunted into inferior social positions solely on the basis of group membership, regardless of their own individual talents. In our own country, there is little argument that African Americans have historically been relegated to this status.) In some cases, these minority groups are racially distinct from the majority; in others, however, the disenfranchised minority and the dominant group are racially indistinguishable. In the latter situation, racially based genetic differences cannot possibly account for the observed disparities in IQ scores. And if genetic racial differences between the groups cannot explain the disparities in these cases, it stretches credulity to argue that they account for gaps of an identical size among groups that do differ racially. (citing "A Threat in the Air: How Stereotypes Shape the Intellectual Identities and Performance of Women and African Americans," American Psychologist 52 (1997): 613-29. ) {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Castles, Elaine E. (6 June 2012). Inventing Intelligence. ABC-CLIO. pp. 141–142. ISBN 978-1-4408-0338-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. Intelligence tests, as we have seen, are narrowly rooted in the dominant American culture, with its strongly held values of independence, individualism, and rationalism. But to survive their centuries of enslavement and exploitation in this country, African Americans have developed a different cultural tradition—one that, as compared with mainstream white culture, focuses on mutual assistance, interdependence, and community support. These particular qualities offer their possessors few advantages on conventional tests of psychometric intelligence. They are highly relevent, however, to intelligence more broadly defined as adaptive functioning. And in fact there is clear evidence that on our rather crude measures of social competence, creativity, and practical intelligence, black and white test-takers earn very similar scores. When it comes to many of the characteristics of intelligent behavior most relevant to real-life success, the much-studied, much-lamented, and much-debated racial gap virtually disappears. (citing "Racial(ized) Identity, Ethnic Identity, and Afrocentric Values: Conceptual and Methodological Challenges in Understanding African American Identity," Journal of Counseling Psychology 52 (2005): 517-26; Biko Martin Sankofa, Eric A. Hurley, Brenda A. Allen, and A. Wade Boykin, "Cultural Expression and Black Students' Attitudes toward High Achievers," Journal of Psychology 139 (2005): 247-59; Robert J. Sternberg, The Rainbow Project Collaborators, and the University of Michigan Business School Project Collaborators, "Theory-Based Admissions Testing for a New Millennium," Educational Psychologist 39 (2004): 185-98. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Castles, Elaine E. (6 June 2012). Inventing Intelligence. ABC-CLIO. p. 145. ISBN 978-1-4408-0338-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. As psychologist Ulric Neisser, editor of a recent volume on this phenomenon, has pointed out, the pattern of rising IQ test scores [para] either does or does not reflect real increases in g. If it does reflect real increases, g clearly is affected by environmental factors because no genetic process could produce such large changes so quickly. Whatever those environmental factors may be, we can at least reject the hypothesis that intelligence is genetically fixed. But if it does not reflect real increases . . . then the tests are evidently flawed, and all arguments based on tests scores become suspect. Either way, things look bad for g and the arguments of The bell Curve. (citing "Introduction: Rising Test Scores and What They Mean," in The Rising Curve: Long-Term Gains in IQ and Related Measures, ed. Ulric Neisser (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 1998), 5. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Castles, Elaine E. (6 June 2012). Inventing Intelligence. ABC-CLIO. p. 153. ISBN 978-1-4408-0338-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. But what of the argument that the presence of less capable students adversely affects the achievement of their higher-IQ classmates? Not true, the research suggests. As long as academic standards are not diluted, there is no consistent evidence to indicate that de-tracking limits the progress of higher-achieving students in any way. (citing "Tracking Trounces Test Scores," Education Digest 69 (2004): 15-17. ) ( citing Inspired by the dramatic success of teacher Jaime Escalante in preparing at-risk, minority students in his East Los Angeles high school to pass the difficult Advanced Placement Calculus exam, school districts around the country have begun rethinking their restrictions on admission to AP classes as well. Enrollment in AP classes has increased 140 percent in the last decade, with one out of three high school graduates having taken at least one test. Many schools are now encouraging all students to take AP classes, reasoning that they will benefit even if they are not able to pass the test. The project was the subject of the popular movie Stand and Deliver. George Madrid, Paul Powers, Kevin Galvin, Donald L. Kester, Will Santos, and Steve Yamarone, Jaime Escalante Mathematics and Science Program. National Science Foundation. Final Project Report (ERIC, ED 424311, 1997); Stand and Deliver, directed by Ramón Menéndez (1988; Warner Bros.). sref=harv {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Castles, Elaine E. (6 June 2012). Inventing Intelligence. ABC-CLIO. p. 173 note 26. ISBN 978-1-4408-0338-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. Time does march on, and by the 1960s the Stanford-Binet had been largely replaced by the newer Wechsler Scales. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Clarenbach, Jane; Eckert, Rebecca D. (21 August 2012). "Chapter 4: Policy-Related Definitions of Giftedness". In Callahan, Carolyn M.; Hertberg-Davis, Holly L. (eds.). Fundamentals of Gifted Education: Considering Multiple Perspectives. Routledge. p. 29. ISBN 978-1-136-94643-1. As is evident in the Task Force discussion above, a range of definitions of giftedness exists with limited agreement about how terms and concepts related to educating high-ability students are delineated. In general, definitions of giftedness tend to be either theoretical or practical in their construction. Moon (2006) refers to the dichotomy as conceptual versus operational, and the literature on gifted education is filled with a variety of examples of both types (Sternberg, 2004).

Clarenbach, Jane; Eckert, Rebecca D. (21 August 2012). "Chapter 4: Policy-Related Definitions of Giftedness". In Callahan, Carolyn M.; Hertberg-Davis, Holly L. (eds.). Fundamentals of Gifted Education: Considering Multiple Perspectives. Routledge. p. 31. ISBN 978-1-136-94643-1. Responses to a recent survey of state departments of education indicate that 'intellectually gifted' as a category of giftedness is the most common area of giftedness recognized across the United States (cited in 36 of 40 state definitions). 'Academically gifted' was included in 25 state definitions and 'leadership' in 18 state definitions. Four states included 'highly gifted' as a category of giftedness. How states handle capacity or aptitude, as well as the factor(s) they use for determining giftedness adds ambiguity to the national picture. While 28 states use the federal reference point for giftedness—that the student requires services not ordinarily provided by the school—a full 32 states include 'potential for giftedness' in their definitions. Ten states use 'age, experience, or environment' as the comparison point and seven states have no point of comparison, leaving districts in those states to develop their own (NAGC, 2010b).

Davis, Gary A.; Rimm first2=Sylvia B.; Siegle, Del (April 2010). Education of the Gifted and Talented. Pearson Education, Limited. p. 6. ISBN 978-0-13-505607-3. Terman's second contribution was his identification and longitudinal study of 1,528 gifted children, published in the Genetic Studies of Genius series (Burks, Jensen, & Terman, 1930; Terman, 1925; Terman & Oden, 1947, 1959; see Shurkin, 1992). In 1922 Terman and his colleagues identified 1,000 children with Stanford-Binet IQ scores above 135 (most were above 140), the upper 1%. By 1928 he added another 528. Of the 1,528, there were 856 boys and 672 girls. The average age was 12 years. All gifted and most comparison children were from major California cities: Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, and Alameda. They had been initially identified by teachers as highly intelligent. Tests, questionnaires, and interviews in at least nine major contacts (field studies or mailings) in 1922, 1927-28, 1936, 1939-40, 1945, 1950, 1955, 1960, and 1972 traced their physical, psychological, social, and professional development for half a century (e.g., Oden, 1968). The earliest research involved parents, teachers, medical records, and even anthropometric (head) measurements. {{cite book}}: Missing pipe in: |last2= (help); Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

Davis, Gary A.; Rimm first2=Sylvia B.; Siegle, Del (April 2010). Education of the Gifted and Talented. Pearson Education, Limited. p. 8. ISBN 978-0-13-505607-3. Second, correlations (e.g., between IQ and life success) do not necessarily imply causation—that is, that a high IQ causes life success. {{cite book}}: Missing pipe in: |last2= (help); Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

Davis, Gary A.; Rimm first2=Sylvia B.; Siegle, Del (April 2010). Education of the Gifted and Talented. Pearson Education, Limited. p. 17. ISBN 978-0-13-505607-3. There is no one definition of 'gifted,' 'talented,' or 'giftedness' that is universally accepted. Common usage of the terms even by experts is ambiguous and inconsistent. For example, it is acceptable to use the terms interchangeably, as when we describe the same person as either a 'gifted artist' or a 'talented artist.' For convenience, the authors and others use the single word gifted to abbreviate gifted and talented. {{cite book}}: Missing pipe in: |last2= (help); Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

Davis, Gary A.; Rimm first2=Sylvia B.; Siegle, Del (April 2010). Education of the Gifted and Talented. Pearson Education, Limited. p. 17. ISBN 978-0-13-505607-3. Related to this continuum definition, many programs include students who barely meet the established criteria, along with one or two others who are extraordinarily brilliant or astonishingly talented in a particular area. No accepted label distinguishes between these two visible groups, although "highly gifted," "extremely gifted," or "exceptionally gifted" are used, along with the tongue-in-cheek "severely gifted," "profoundly gifted," or "exotically gifted." {{cite book}}: Missing pipe in: |last2= (help); Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

Davis, Gary A.; Rimm first2=Sylvia B.; Siegle, Del (April 2010). Education of the Gifted and Talented. Pearson Education, Limited. p. 34. ISBN 978-0-13-505607-3. As a caution, the descriptions of Terman's gifted subjects present them as near-perfect children. However, there was a serious bias in their selection. The 1,528 children were identified from a larger group of children who first were nominated by their teachers as "gifted." We know that teachers will identify as "gifted" those children who are pleasant, well behaved, prompt, conforming, high-achieving, attractive, neat, and popular, and who wear expensive clothes and speak standard English (e.g., Good & Weinstein, 1985; Keneal, 1991; LeTendre, 1991). Perhaps it is not surprising that Terman could describe his students' physical and mental health in such glowing language. {{cite book}}: Missing pipe in: |last2= (help); Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

Davis, Gary A.; Rimm first2=Sylvia B.; Siegle, Del (April 2010). Education of the Gifted and Talented. Pearson Education, Limited. p. 35. ISBN 978-0-13-505607-3. It is significant that two Novel Prize winners, Luis Alvarez and William B. Shockley, were excluded from the Terman study because their IQ scores were not sufficiently high (Hermann & Stanley, 1983). {{cite book}}: Missing pipe in: |last2= (help); Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

Davis, Gary A.; Rimm first2=Sylvia B.; Siegle, Del (April 2010). Education of the Gifted and Talented. Pearson Education, Limited. p. 41. ISBN 978-0-13-505607-3. An important implication of distinguishing between intellectual and creative giftedness is that if students are selected for a gifted program upon the basis of scores in the top 1% to 5% in intelligence, the majority of creative students will be missed. Another implication is that when asked to identify "gifted" students, as we noted earlier in this chapter, many teachers will quickly nominate the well-behaved, conforming, neat, and dutiful "teacher pleasers," rather than less conforming students who are highly creative and more unconventional. {{cite book}}: Missing pipe in: |last2= (help); Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

Davis, Gary A.; Rimm first2=Sylvia B.; Siegle, Del (April 2010). Education of the Gifted and Talented. Pearson Education, Limited. p. 44. ISBN 978-0-13-505607-3. Consider this dilemma. Simonton (2003) noted that, ideally, Terman's (1925) gifted children should have become eminent adults and, vice versa, Cox's (1926) eminent adults should have been gifted children. But some of Terman's high IQ children were "misfits and failures," and "many of the 301 geniuses in her [Cox's] sample would not have qualified for inclusion in Terman's study" (Simonton, p. 358). Simonton puzzled out some of the often subtle circumstances that help explain this apparent peculiarity. {{cite book}}: Missing pipe in: |last2= (help); Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

Davis, Gary A.; Rimm first2=Sylvia B.; Siegle, Del (April 2010). Education of the Gifted and Talented. Pearson Education, Limited. p. 56. ISBN 978-0-13-505607-3. In her article "The Case Against Formal Identification," Davidson (1986) expressed strong frustration with formal testing, rating, and nomination procedures, including the use of point systems and cutoffs. Davidson noted that a student with a tested IQ of 110 may show greater giftedness in the sense of originality and thought-provoking ideas and answers than a student with a tested IQ of 140—who will be selected for the program. Even creativity tests do not measure every aspect of a child's creativeness, noted Davidson; and peer, parent, and teacher nominations can be biased in favor of popular, English-speaking, middle-class students. {{cite book}}: Missing pipe in: |last2= (help); Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

Davis, Gary A.; Rimm first2=Sylvia B.; Siegle, Del (April 2010). Education of the Gifted and Talented. Pearson Education, Limited. p. 66. ISBN 978-0-13-505607-3. EXTENDED NORMS In response to a National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) task-force request, extended norms were developed by Pearson to better estimate IQ scores of students who achieved ceiling scores (Technical Report #7; Pearson Education, Inc., 2008). These extended-norm scores are only in experimental use at this time, but could have potential for identifying highly gifted students. {{cite book}}: Missing pipe in: |last2= (help); Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

Eysenck, Hans (1998). Intelligence: A New Look. New Brunswick (NJ): Transaction Publishers. p. 126. ISBN 978-0-7658-0707-6. Cox found that the more was known about a person's youthful accomplishments, that is, what he had done 'before' he was engaged in doing the things that made him known as a genius, the higher was his IQ. . . . So she proceeded to make a statistical correction in each case for lack of knowledge; this bumped up the figure considerably for the geniuses about whom little was in fact known. . . . I am rather doubtful about the justification for making the correction. To do so assumes that the geniuses about whom least is known were precocious but their previous activities were not recorded. This may be true, but it is also possible to argue that perhaps there was nothing much to record! I feel uneasy about making such assumptions; doing so may be very misleading. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Eysenck, Hans (1998). Intelligence: A New Look. New Brunswick (NJ): Transaction Publishers. p. 127. ISBN 978-0-7658-0707-6. What is obvious is that geniuses have a high degree of intelligence, but not outrageously high—there are many accounts of people in the population with IQs as high who have not achieved anything like the status of genius. Indeed, they may have achieved very little; there are large numbers of Mensa members who are elected on the basis of an IQ test, but whose creative achievements are nil. High achievement seems to be a necessary qualification for high creativity, but it does not seem to be a sufficient one." (emphasis in original) {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Eysenck, Hans (1998). Intelligence: A New Look. New Brunswick (NJ): Transaction Publishers. pp. 127–128. ISBN 978-0-7658-0707-6. Terman, who originated those 'Genetics Studies of Genius,' as he called them, selected . . . children on the basis of their high IQs; the mean was 151 for both sexes. Seventy-seven who were tested with the newly translated and standardized Binet test had IQs of 170 or higher—well at or above the level of Cox's geniuses. What happened to these potential geniuses—did they revolutionize society? . . . The answer in brief is that they did very well in terms of achievement, but none reached the Nobel Prize level, let alone that of genius. . . . It seems clear that these data powerfully confirm the suspicion that intelligence is not a sufficient trait for truly creative achievement of the highest grade. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Eysenck, Hans (1998). Intelligence: A New Look. New Brunswick (NJ): Transaction Publishers. p. 128. ISBN 978-0-7658-0707-6. Both Cox and Terman suggest from their studies that personality may be an important ingredient. Terman looked at the personalities of the most and least successful of his subjects; they did not differ in IQ. The successful ones were less moody, impulsive, or conformist; they showed more self-confidence, sociability, perseverance, integration towards goals, absence of inferiority feelings, and common sense as compared to the less successful. When rated by the investigators, the successful ones were superior in appearance, attractiveness, poise, speech, alertness, friendliness, attentiveness, curiousity, and originality. Note the stress on originality and lack of conformity; these are also essential qualities of genius, and are part and parcel of 'creativity'. Clearly greater creativity is involved in success, even at this below-genius level. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Eysenck, Hans (1998). Intelligence: A New Look. New Brunswick (NJ): Transaction Publishers. p. 128. ISBN 978-0-7658-0707-6. Cox also looked at personality traits shown by her geniuses, and found that particularly high came a trait she called persistence, that is, a tendency to invest effort in one's endeavours, to be highly motivated to succeed, and to continue working on one's ideas in spite of criticism, ridicule and apparent failure. It also specifies sheer hard work! Edison consisdered genius 'one percent inspiration—ninety-nine percent perspiration'; for Buffon genius was 'but a great aptitude for patience'; Frederick the Great thought it was a 'transcendent capacity for taking trouble.' Cox concluded her statistical comparison by saying that persistence was possibly even more important than intelligence, although obviously both were needed. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Eysenck, Hans (1998). Intelligence: A New Look. New Brunswick (NJ): Transaction Publishers. p. 128. ISBN 978-0-7658-0707-6. Modern students have given IQ and personality tests to outstanding scientists and artists, with results not dissimilar to those of Cox and Terman. High-flyers have high IQs, are strongly motivated, and work extremely hard. These are not unexpected results; the notion of genius mysteriously pouring out treasure without effort has been shown to be quite wrong, even for the likes of Mozart who is often portrayed as working miracles without effort! There is no achievement without hard work, and no genius without an iron will to succeed. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Eysenck, Hans (1998). Intelligence: A New Look. New Brunswick (NJ): Transaction Publishers. p. 132. ISBN 978-0-7658-0707-6. It is impossible to discuss all the many studies carried out by Torrance, using children of various ages, and following them up over different periods, but the results are very clear. There are highly significant positive correlations between the children's divergent thinking scores, and later creative achievement; a correlation of 0.60 is perhaps typical of the results achieved. Twelve years is probably a minimum follow-up period, less than that does not give the children sufficient time to demonstrate their creativity (or lack of it!) in any convincing manner. Convergent intelligence was also measured, but did not correlate at all with creative achievement. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Eysenck, Hans (1998). Intelligence: A New Look. New Brunswick (NJ): Transaction Publishers. p. 147. ISBN 978-0-7658-0707-6. It should be pretty obvious to anyone looking at the matter in an unprejudiced manner that a simple correlation between parental and filial behaviour cannot possibly throw any light on the vexed question of nature and nurture. Either or both, in various combinations, could be responsible; we definitely need much clearer experimental designs to come to any reasonable conclusion. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Eysenck, Hans (1998). Intelligence: A New Look. New Brunswick (NJ): Transaction Publishers. p. 148. ISBN 978-0-7658-0707-6. But naturally Galton's data have been reexamined by modern workers, and it has been found that only judges seemed to congregate within families; no such aggregation was found in other professions. More recent studies have failed to support Galton's view, using new material; Bullough and his co-workers found that 'creative achievement was rarely carried on in the same family beyond one generation,' and contrary to the assumption of Galton, creative achievers did not usually have children who also achieved. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Eysenck, Hans (1998). Intelligence: A New Look. New Brunswick (NJ): Transaction Publishers. p. 148–149. ISBN 978-0-7658-0707-6. We start with the genome, that is, the entire collection of genes arranged in their forty-six chromosomes. These can be thought of as a blueprint or, better still, a very large book of instructions, each of whose 100,000 or so pages representing a different gene. Of these, about three-quarters are identical for all normal human individuals (monomorphic genes, determining that we have two legs and two arms, one nose, etc.) Some of these we share with other animals, many of them with the higher apes; only some are quite specifically human. Other genes are polymorphic, and responsible for genetically based individual differences within a given species. Genes have different alleles, that is, different variations or forms of expression, varying from two to twenty or so. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Eysenck, Hans (1998). Intelligence: A New Look. New Brunswick (NJ): Transaction Publishers. p. 150. ISBN 978-0-7658-0707-6. We can argue for the importance of heredity on precisely opposite lines to those adopted by Galton. The random segregation of genes that produces the genome of the child will very occasionally, and extremely rarely, produce a configuration necessary to give rise to a genius, and this may happen to any couple who are not themselves in the genius or even the high eminence class. Indeed, because over 99.9999 percent of the human race does not belong to this class, the genius is much more likely to come from relatively undistinguished parents who constitute the vast majority! {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Eysenck, Hans (1998). Intelligence: A New Look. New Brunswick (NJ): Transaction Publishers. p. 150. ISBN 978-0-7658-0707-6. In the vast majority of cases these very ordinary parents did not provide any particularly promising evnironment for their children. Michael Faraday, arguably the greatest physicist of the nineteenth century, grew up in great poverty, and with little education, as already mentioned. Most genomes come from middle-class families admittedly, but there was nothing to distinguish their upbringing or schooling from that received by millions of perfectly ordinary dullards who never achieved anything in the least creative. Occasionally of course the parents provided a hothouse atmosphere for the budding genius. John Stuart Mill was coached by his father, but Immanuel Kant, a much greater philosopher, was not. Galton was coached by his sister Adele, but Darwin was not so coached. Mozart was coached by his father, but Brahms was not. For every case where there was some favourable environmental factor, there are dozens where there was not. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Eysenck, Hans (1998). Intelligence: A New Look. New Brunswick (NJ): Transaction Publishers. p. 204. ISBN 978-0-7658-0707-6. Brody also gives an excellent summary of the most recent studies on the relation between intelligence and occupations. He quotes a table giving the connection between IQ, perceptual ability, and psychomotor ability with predicted success in different job families, corrected for criteria unreliability and for range restriction. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Eysenck, Hans (1998). Intelligence: A New Look. New Brunswick (NJ): Transaction Publishers. p. 205–206. ISBN 978-0-7658-0707-6. Herman Spitz, The Raising of Intelligence: A Selected History of Attempts to Raise Retarded Intelligence is the volume to read. The book was published by Lawrence Erlbaum, in 1986. Also, well worth consulting is Charles Locurto's Sense and Nonsense mentioned earlier. These books clearly demonstrate the widespread fraudulence that pretended to advance IQs of deprived children by up to 40 points, and the complicity of the media that praised studies before publication because they once and for all proved environmentalism triumphant—to fall silent when the fraud was edmonstrated. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Eysenck, Hans (1998). Intelligence: A New Look. New Brunswick (NJ): Transaction Publishers. p. 207. ISBN 978-0-7658-0707-6. I have treated the topics of 'genius' and 'creativity' exhaustively in my book on Genius: The Natural History of Creativity, published by Cambridge University Press in 1996, and all references in these last chapters will be found there. Extremely valuable in this connection are several books written by the doyen of writers on the subject, Dean Simonton. Scientific Genius was published by Cambridge University Press in 1988; Genius, Creativity and Leardership by Harvard University Press in 1984; and Greatness by the Guilford Press in 1994. All are well worth reading. Arthur Koestler's The Act of Creation was published in 1964 by Macmillan. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Fletcher, Richard B.; Hattie, John (11 March 2011). Intelligence and Intelligence Testing. Taylor & Francis. p. 3. ISBN 978-1-136-82321-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. In a series of studies, American psychologist Robert Sternberg (1985a), then professor at Yale University, asked laypeople what intelligence meant to them. He found that people perceived intelligence as being related to reasoning logically, making connections between ideas and seeing all aspects of a problem. From this series of studies, Sternberg concluded that laypeople held one of three primary views of intelligence: problem-solving intelligence, verbal intelligence and social intelligence—all views that fit well with the attributes most 'experts' ascribe to the concept of intelligence, as discussed later in this chapter. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Fletcher, Richard B.; Hattie, John (11 March 2011). Intelligence and Intelligence Testing. Taylor & Francis. p. 3. ISBN 978-1-136-82321-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. The beliefs we hold about intelligence can make a big difference to our effectiveness. For example, Carol Dweck (1999) has shown many times that teachers who believe intelligence is something that is changeable and can be improved are far more successful at teaching than those who believe intelligence is something that is fixed and something you cannot change - regardless of the truth about whether intelligence is or is not changeable. In sum, the confidence that teachers have about their ability to change students' intelligence is a powerful tool for actually making a difference! {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Fletcher, Richard B.; Hattie, John (11 March 2011). Intelligence and Intelligence Testing. Taylor & Francis. p. 5. ISBN 978-1-136-82321-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. Just as laypeople in the Western world have different views of what intelligence is, so there are diverse perspectives of intelligence as we move across different cultures. The major difference across cultures relates to the importance of what we reason and problem-solve about. Some societies care more about problem-solving that leads to greater personal development (individualism), while others care more about problem-solving that leads to greater social harmony (collectivism) - and there are many variations in the balance of these factors. [para] Collectivism refers to societies (or people) that favour harmony, a sense of closeness and duty to family and others, seeking others' advice and a responsibility to the group. Individualism refers to societies that value uniqueness, personal independence, achievement, self-knowledge, clear communication and competition. You can imagine that what is seen as intelligence is likely to differ in these two types of societies. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Fletcher, Richard B.; Hattie, John (11 March 2011). Intelligence and Intelligence Testing. Taylor & Francis. p. 5. ISBN 978-1-136-82321-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. Collectivists are more likely to see social intelligence, working with others, contemplative thinking, seeking the views of others, humility and an ability to know oneself and others as the hallmarks of intelligence. Individualists are more likely to see verbal and knowledge-based notions of intelligence, speed of thinking, getting ahead and enjoying learning for self-improvement as the hallmarks of intelligence. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Fletcher, Richard B.; Hattie, John (11 March 2011). Intelligence and Intelligence Testing. Taylor & Francis. p. 5. ISBN 978-1-136-82321-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. Collectivists consider rote learning and good memory as powerful tools for acquiring a deeper understanding of various topics. They see memory of facts as important for deeper thinking and intelligence. Collectivists would claim that we need to understand the surface features of things before we delve deeper into the relations between these facts or ideas, and particularly before we generalise or extend our thinking. In more individualistic societies, rote memory is something used often for quick success at passing exams or getting through difficult problem-solving exercises, but often this way of learning is not praised. Individualists largely view memory for facts as unimportant for intelligence. It is not surprising, then, that many Westerners condemn Eastern students as rote learners and fail to recognise that they are, indeed, using this technique to assist them in attaining a deeper level of understanding. This explanation of the different uses of memory in intelligence helps us unravel what John Biggs (1996) has called the 'apparent paradox of the Asian learner' - they come out at the top in the comparison of education systems across the world but we seem to not like the way they come out on top. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Fletcher, Richard B.; Hattie, John (11 March 2011). Intelligence and Intelligence Testing. Taylor & Francis. p. 6. ISBN 978-1-136-82321-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. The many 'experts' or academic researchers on the topic of intelligence come from diverse disciplines, ranging from education, psychology and sociology to medicine and politics. Not surprisingly, there are many contested views on what intelligence means. In 1921, E.L. Thorndike asked experts (mostly fellow academics) to define intelligence, and then again, in 1986, in another study by Robert Sternberg and Douglas Detterman, experts were asked how they defined intelligence. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Fletcher, Richard B.; Hattie, John (11 March 2011). Intelligence and Intelligence Testing. Taylor & Francis. p. 7. ISBN 978-1-136-82321-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. At both times, experts indicated that they regarded intelligence in terms of adapting to the environment, using mental processes and higher-order thinking such as problem-solving and effective decision-making -quite similar to the lay views. Both groups argued about whether there were one or many notions of intelligence and about whether intelligence was narrow or broad in what it encompassed. The 1986 group included the ability to control or regulate knowledge, saw knowledge as more important and placed more emphasis than the 1921 definitions on the role of context, particularly the importance of culture in defining intelligence. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Fletcher, Richard B.; Hattie, John (11 March 2011). Intelligence and Intelligence Testing. Taylor & Francis. p. 15. ISBN 978-1-136-82321-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. Most psychologists and psychometricians would agree that intelligence testing has its limitations, but most would also support the notion of intelligence as being a major dimension in an individual's overall psychological make-up and, therefore, something that should not be ignored (as Wittgenstein commented, 'The strength of the rope lies not in any one thread but in the overlapping of many fibres' - intelligence is but one thread). Indeed, measures of intelligence can be important in many ways, as Chapter 4 details. Yes, IQ has had some bad press, and yes, it has not always been used in the most ethical or defensible ways, but the same could be said about personality and many other forms of testing. In today's highly competitive workforce the preponderance of personality tests and their use when making important employment decisions about people is on the rise, yet there is too little criticism of these methods. This lack of critique could be because there have been fewer 'dirty' stories about the misuse of these methods, less connection in the past between personality and race issues and because the scientific community has been less rigorous in its attention to the measurement and use of these methods. So let us take a look at the history of this controversial concept of intelligence and its measurement - but please keep in mind our earlier comment that the history of IQ, like so many other controversial topics, is located within a much larger social debate that reflects the beliefs, biases and prejudices of the prevailing views of the time. While it is easy to ridicule IQ based on its history, it is harder to refute the notion of individual differences in ability, be they intellectual or physical, especially when one can see such variation in everyday things. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Fletcher, Richard B.; Hattie, John (11 March 2011). Intelligence and Intelligence Testing. Taylor & Francis. p. 18. ISBN 978-1-136-82321-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. The original motive for the intelligence scale that Binet and Simon developed in 1905 was to identify children within the Parisian school system who were not benefiting from regular forms of instruction. The implication was that intelligence was not fixed or necessarily due to any single cause, but that appropriate schooling could modify intelligence - this was in stark contrast to his predecessors. Binet's work, in effect, signalled the beginning of the special education programmes and the assessment of students most likely to benefit from these programmes (and those likely to receive benefit in the 'regular' or sometimes 'gifted' classrooms), which still exists in some form in modern-day schools. Binet and Simon's measure was aimed at assessing a child's general intellectual development and was composed of 30 tests, arranged in ascending order of difficulty. The tests ranged from vocabulary to physical performance tasks. It is important to understand that the motive for Binet and Simon in their testing of intelligence was not for comparative purposes but rather for identifying or classifying which children would be better educated in special classrooms. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Fletcher, Richard B.; Hattie, John (11 March 2011). Intelligence and Intelligence Testing. Taylor & Francis. p. 20. ISBN 978-1-136-82321-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. Ethical issues aside, it is worth dwelling on the notion that Goddard translated the scale from French to English and then retranslated it into various other languages; therefore, the accuracy of these tests was likely compromised, given that French norms were used in the classification. Even today, translating a test into another language is a controversial and difficult process. This combined with the poor reliability and validity of the translated measures, as well as the huge cultural issues involved in testing people from such varied backgrounds and especially in these tense situations of border and customs checks, creates a grossly unfair testing process. The widespread use of Goddard's procedures at Ellis Island saw the numbers of immigrants deported grow exponentially. [para] Although Goddard initially held staunch hereditarian views, he later recanted his opiniion in favour of the nurture over nature argument. In essence, he acknowledged that 'feeble-mindedness' was something that could be treated, and that institutionalizing people on the basis of IQ scores was not necessary. One positive thing in Goddard's favour was that he helped draft one of the first state laws mandating that special provisions be made for special education classes. Obviously Goddard was a complex and contradictory man of his day (see Zenderland, 1998). {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Fletcher, Richard B.; Hattie, John (11 March 2011). Intelligence and Intelligence Testing. Taylor & Francis. p. 26. ISBN 978-1-136-82321-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. Indeed, this effect, now called the 'Flynn effect', is well established. Nations, almost without exception, have shown gains of about 20 IQ points per generation (30 years). These gains are highest for IQ tests that are most related to reasoning and the capacity to figure out novel problems (this is often called 'fluid intelligence', see Chapter 5); and least related to knowledge, which arises from better educational opportunity, a history of persistence and good motivation for learning (this is often called 'crystallised intelligence', see Chapter 5). It is, therefore, important to note that these gains in IQ across decades and generations is not related to the type of knowledge gained from increased schooling, increased test-taking sophistication, increased nutrition, greater urbanisation, eradication of childhood diseases, upgrading of early childhood or preschool programmes or education in general. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Fletcher, Richard B.; Hattie, John (11 March 2011). Intelligence and Intelligence Testing. Taylor & Francis. p. 26. ISBN 978-1-136-82321-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. Perhaps that best instance of extreme argument about IQ and race differences is Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray's now-infamous 1994 book The Bell Curve. The book includes reports of many research studies, but it was the authors' interpretations of the research that caused an outcry. For example, when citing research on the relation between IQ and illegitimacy, they noted that the smarter a woman is, the more likely that she deliberately decides to have a child and calculates the best time to do it. The less intelligent the woman is, the more likely that she does not think ahead from sex to procreation, does not remember to use birth control, does not carefully consider when and under what circumstances she should have a child. How intelligent a woman is may interact with her impulsiveness, and hence her ability to exert self-discipline and restraint on her partner in order to avoid pregnancy. (p. 179) They go on to conclude that 'low intelligence is an important independent cause of illegitimacy' (p. 189). Such (il)logic and the assumption that having a baby is entirely up to one sex, the omission of mentioning the father, and the conclusion of 'welfare being the prime suspect' is more rhetoric than research. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Fletcher, Richard B.; Hattie, John (11 March 2011). Intelligence and Intelligence Testing. Taylor & Francis. p. 27. ISBN 978-1-136-82321-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. The debates about IQ today are rarely mainstream for psychologists. Instead, research is more related to the notions of 'cognitive functioning', developed during the 1970s and 1980s, whereby there is a search for the various strategies and manners in which we process information. This has led to the identification of many strategies, and some researchers seem to be concerned that some of us have more versatility and expertise in the use of these strategies and that this seems to relate to the notion of general intelligence, or 'g'. In many ways, researchers of today rarely refer to the notion of 'g'. This makes life easier as it avoids the debates about race, heredity and 'designer genes'; but one does not need to scratch too far beyond the surface to note that the issues of IQ are still present. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Fletcher, Richard B.; Hattie, John (11 March 2011). Intelligence and Intelligence Testing. Taylor & Francis. p. 34. ISBN 978-1-136-82321-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. It is critical to note that it is rare for a psychologist to only use an IQ test - it is most often implemented as part of a battery of assessments. A study by one of the authors (Hattie, 1987), in the heyday of IQ tests, reviewed the files of more than 1,000 children from a large school district. There was not one case where an IQ test only was administered - it was always administered alongside other measures. Hence, the value of IQ tests is as much related to how it is interpreted in conjunction with other methods of assessment as it is to the score attained in the IQ test alone. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Fletcher, Richard B.; Hattie, John (11 March 2011). Intelligence and Intelligence Testing. Taylor & Francis. p. 36. ISBN 978-1-136-82321-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. These results need to be treated with some caution because some of the data sources are questionable. To derive the IQ of a nation on, at times, very small sample sizes is suspect at best. For example, they used 80 students for Tonga and 80 for Western Samoa and both samples were children living in Auckland, New Zealand. It is also very difficult to believe a country's average IQ is 59, as was the case for Equatorial Guinea (with a sample size of 48 adolescents). This would mean that less than 5 per cent of the nation had an IQ above 100, and that if all the people of Equatorial Guinea were living in New Zealand they would all be in special classes. It is absurd to claim a county has an average IQ so low, based on so few, leading to such a ridiculous average. Something is wrong, for example, when it is noted that the overall average IQ score from the 81 countries listed is 88, well below the expected average of 100. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Fletcher, Richard B.; Hattie, John (11 March 2011). Intelligence and Intelligence Testing. Taylor & Francis. p. 36. ISBN 978-1-136-82321-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. A long-standing debate has been whether schooling can enhance a student's IQ score. Many have claimed it is very difficult to make any changes, but others have disputed this. One claim is that schools can assist students to reach their potential (within the limits of their IQ) and others have claimed that there is no such notion as 'within the limits of their IQ'. Research by Cornell University developmental psychologist Stephen Ceci has exciting implications for schools. Ceci (1991) has demonstrated that schooling increases IQ scores. Teachers who 'believe' that achievement is more a function of effort and teaching rather than of intelligence are more likely to enhance their students' achievement (regardless of the correctness of this belief). However, it is likely that, while schooling may influence IQ, people with higher IQs may also seek more education and derive greater benefits from schooling. There is also a detrimental effect on IQ from dropping out of school early. Ceci (2003) described a study that showed a drop of 2 IQ points for each year of high school not completed beyond compulsory school age. Similarly, missing school (truancy, sickness) can lead to drops in IQ. This suggests that without the opportunity for mental activity provided by schools, intelligence can be significantly limited. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Fletcher, Richard B.; Hattie, John (11 March 2011). Intelligence and Intelligence Testing. Taylor & Francis. p. 37. ISBN 978-1-136-82321-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. While important, general intelligence (or 'g'), as measured by IQ tests, is only one of the attributes we value in our society. Arthur Jensen (1998: 356), for example, has underlined that the expression of intelligence in any person's life and in the character of a society depends on other factors, equally important, that are independent of 'g'. He goes on to say that it is the interaction between general intelligence and these other factors that accounts for much, probably most, of the enormous variance in the visible aspects of what most people regard as worldly success. Success in life is not at all related to a single factor; success has many dimensions and IQ plays an important part in only some of them. There are many other factors that can sit along with, and at times surpass, IQ and these certainly are valued just as much as IQ. These include conscientiousness, integrity, sustainability, effort, commitment and seeking to be self-learners, among other attributes. Perhaps if we didn't use the terms IQ, 'g' or general intelligence we would be no worse off. Indeed, that is what psychology appears to have done since the radical days of discontentment about IQ in the 1960s and later. But this would be a false illusion, as we have reinvented IQ in so many new forms and words. Moreover, we still use tests (such as the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale and the Raven's Matrices) even though they have a reduced emphasis on the notion of IQ or do not used the term at all; we still assess children's generalised skills (under many names) before recommending various treatments and programmes; and we still find that general intelligence is the best predictor of job performance and success in many aspects of our society. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Fletcher, Richard B.; Hattie, John (11 March 2011). Intelligence and Intelligence Testing. Taylor & Francis. p. 41. ISBN 978-1-136-82321-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. So, if a person gets a high score on an intelligence test, does this mean that he or she has high intelligence? It depends. The answer would be yes, if the test is valid and reliable, and if it has the support of good psychometric evidence. But many of the tests of intelligence in popular magazines, for example, have no evidence of reliability or validity, and therefore no weight should be placed on the interpretations from such tests. Such tests may look acceptable, but it would not be defensible to make any decisions based on tests such as these that lack evidence of validity and reliability. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Fletcher, Richard B.; Hattie, John (11 March 2011). Intelligence and Intelligence Testing. Taylor & Francis. p. 48. ISBN 978-1-136-82321-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. One of the reasons we chose the WAIS as a gold standard was that it has the most extensive psychometric evidence. The technical manual that accompanies the test is one of the most comprehensive that we have encountered over the years. Suffice to say, the psychometric qualities of the WAIS are well documented, suggesting that the test is valid and reliable and that the scores obtained from it are a strong indicator of the facets of IQ that it purports to measure. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Fletcher, Richard B.; Hattie, John (11 March 2011). Intelligence and Intelligence Testing. Taylor & Francis. p. 61. ISBN 978-1-136-82321-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. The notion of fluid and crystallised intelligence has been popular for many years (since Ray Cattell introduced the concept in his doctoral thesis in 1929, which was supervised by Charles Spearman, the originator of the notion of 'g'). Fluid intelligence (Gf) relates to the capacity to figure out novel problems, whereas crystallised intelligence (Gc) relates to knowledge that arises not only from better educational opportunities but also from a history of persistence and motivation in applying fluid intelligence to areas of learning. Gc therefore reflects more on scholastic and cultural knowledge acquisition. For example, it requires more Gf to answer the question: Temperature is to cold as height is to (a) hot (b) inches (c) size (d) tall (e) weight On the other hand, more Gc is required to answer the question: Bizet is to Carmen as Verdi is to (a) Aida (b) Elektra (c) Lakme (d) Manon (e) Tosca Persons with more Gf tend to acquire more Gc; that is, they reap greater returns on the initial investment of their fluid intelligence, and it is Gc that differs most across cultures. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Fletcher, Richard B.; Hattie, John (11 March 2011). Intelligence and Intelligence Testing. Taylor & Francis. p. 79. ISBN 978-1-136-82321-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. Most important of all, the average IQ is 100 and most of us score between 90 and 110. It was amazing how many people taking part in the Test the Nation: The New Zealand IQ Test programmes thought that a score of 90-110 was somehow deficient - it is not: it is where most of us score on IQ, because this is how IQ tests are designed. It is as important to remember that there are so many other influences on our lives that are just as interesting, and that are predictive of behaviours and opportunities that we value (e.g. creativity, humility, openness). {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Fletcher, Richard B.; Hattie, John (11 March 2011). Intelligence and Intelligence Testing. Taylor & Francis. p. 83. ISBN 978-1-136-82321-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. Contrary to an often-cited and popular view, IQ is not immutable or 'fixed' by genetics. Again, James Flynn has noted: Huge g [general intelligence] gains from one generation to another show that IQ is highly sensitive to environmental factors, and some of these may be cultural factors such as learned strategies or problem-solving picked up at school, or at home or elsewhere. (1987:33) Similarly, Stephen Ceci (1991) has demonstrated that schooling increases IQ scores, although it is not easy to change them. Roberts et al. (2008) concluded that educational interventions can increase IQ by about 8 points - which could make a major difference in how we then apply these enhanced cognitive-thinking attributes to learning, to being selected into more elite programmes and to gaining the other wealth, health and happiness dividends that come from increased intelligence. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Fletcher, Richard B.; Hattie, John (11 March 2011). Intelligence and Intelligence Testing. Taylor & Francis. p. 85. ISBN 978-1-136-82321-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. Intelligence is still one of the best predictors of much that we value in our society - doing well in school, doing well in jobs, health, wealth and happiness - but certainly we should not mistake one for these others, not assume it is the only predictor. There are many other predictors of success, but few have received the same attention or have been as successful as measures of intelligence. So where does the discussion on the development of the concept of IQ go from here? We would hazard a guess that the use of, and debate about, intelligence and IQ testing will continue in much the same vein as it has over the past century (although the terms may change). Debates will be hot about group differences, and these will be so strong that the power of IQ tests to account for individual differences will continue to replace older notions of intelligence, and new methods of assessing these attributes will continue to be developed (primarily because the cognitive attributes that lead to success in understanding our environment will remain of major concern in modern societies) and will remain important for a long time to come. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Fletcher, Richard B.; Hattie, John (11 March 2011). Intelligence and Intelligence Testing. Taylor & Francis. p. 89. ISBN 978-1-136-82321-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. Although the largest contributor to intelligence may be heredity, the effects of environment have been greatly underestimated - particularly how environment leads to opportunities, encouragement and basic living quality. It is, however, the interaction of the effects of genetics and environment that is most powerful. It is likely that there are as many people genetically well endowed with IQ who live in poverty, have little access to schooling and have been given few opportunities to learn as there are people genetically less endowed with IQ-ruling nations and living in excess. Dickens, W.T. and Flynn, J. R. (2001). Heritability estimates versus large environmental effects: The IQ paradox resolved. Psychological Review, 108(2), 346-69. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Fletcher, Richard B.; Hattie, John (11 March 2011). Intelligence and Intelligence Testing. Taylor & Francis. p. 90. ISBN 978-1-136-82321-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. Stephen Ceci (1991) has demonstrated that schooling increases IQ scores, although it is difficult to find many specific or short-term programmes that make a difference to IQ scores. Teachers who believe that achievement is more a function of effort and teaching than of intelligence are more likely to enhance their student's achievement (regardless of the correctness of this belief). It is likely that, while schooling may influence IQ, people with higher IQs may also seek more education and derive greater benefits from schooling. There is a detrimental effect on IQ from dropping out of school early. Ceci (2003) described a study that showed a drop of 2 IQ points for each year of high school not completed beyond compulsory school age. Similarly, missing school (truancy, sickness) can lead to drops in IQ. This suggests that without the opportunity for mental activity provided by schools, intelligence can be significantly limited. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Fletcher, Richard B.; Hattie, John (11 March 2011). Intelligence and Intelligence Testing. Taylor & Francis. p. 91. ISBN 978-1-136-82321-3. Retrieved 31 August 2013. There is only a modest correlation between self-estimated IQ and actual IQ score. Nearly everyone estimates that their IQ is above 100 (the average IQ scores from reputable tests). Males give a higher mean self-estimate of IQs than do females (113 vs. 106), and male estimates are significantly higher than their actual IQ and female estimates are significantly lower than their actual IQ. Females attribute higher IQs to others than they claim for themselves, whereas males attribute lower IQs to others than for themselves. Females estimated higher IQs for their fathers than for their mothers (114 vs. 107). Bennett, M. (1996). Men's and women's self-estimates of intelligence. Journal of Social Psychology, 136, 411-12. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Flint, Jonathan; Greenspan, Ralph J.; Kendler, Kenneth S. (28 January 2010). How Genes Influence Behavior. Oxford University Press. pp. 2–3. ISBN 978-0-19-955990-9. Structural equation modeling is not for the faint-hearted, so that many of its insights remain obscure and easy to misinterpret: the concept of heritability, for example, still gets a lot of flak (it was called—with a hint of the improper if not the obscene—'the H word' at one scientific meeting). {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Flint, Jonathan; Greenspan, Ralph J.; Kendler, Kenneth S. (28 January 2010). How Genes Influence Behavior. Oxford University Press. p. 3. ISBN 978-0-19-955990-9. In some instances, several of which have been very high profile, the findings of these loudly trumpeted studies failed to stand up to further scrutiny. Notable in this category are an early study of bipolar disorder (manic depression) (Egeland et al., 1987) and the claim of a gene for homosexual orientation in men (Hamer et al., 1993). {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Flint, Jonathan; Greenspan, Ralph J.; Kendler, Kenneth S. (28 January 2010). How Genes Influence Behavior. Oxford University Press. p. 12. ISBN 978-0-19-955990-9. We found that if you are in the immediate family of someone with schizophrenia, the chances are 13 times higher that you too will develop schizophrenia compared with being related to a randomly chosen individual from the electoral role. The odds are not actually all that high in absolute terms, 65 out of 1,000 compared with five out of 1,000, but given the nature of this disease for those affected by it and their families, any number of cases is a tragedy. Either way, a family history is a better predictor of future disease than any other factor. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Flint, Jonathan; Greenspan, Ralph J.; Kendler, Kenneth S. (28 January 2010). How Genes Influence Behavior. Oxford University Press. p. 20. ISBN 978-0-19-955990-9. In the ideal adoption study, there should be no correlation between the characteristics of the biological parents who are giving the child up and the adoptive family into which the child is going. This is critical in ordere to separate the effects of genes and family environment. In reality, however, adoption agencies are sometimes asked to match characteristics of the adoptive family with the biological parents. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Flint, Jonathan; Greenspan, Ralph J.; Kendler, Kenneth S. (28 January 2010). How Genes Influence Behavior. Oxford University Press. p. 20. ISBN 978-0-19-955990-9. Another concern in adoption studies is the possible impact of the intrauterine environment and early (pre-adoption) childhood experiences. Some resemblance between the biological mother and her child might be due to what happens before birth, during the 9 months of pregnancy, when in effect child and mother inhabit the same body. Furthermore, many children are not adopted until after they have spent the earliest years of life with their biological parents. If being raised as an infant and toddler by an individual with a severe psychiatic illness contributes to future risk of illness (although the evidence to date does not suggest that this is the case), it could confound adoption studies. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Flint, Jonathan; Greenspan, Ralph J.; Kendler, Kenneth S. (28 January 2010). How Genes Influence Behavior. Oxford University Press. pp. 20–21. ISBN 978-0-19-955990-9. Finally, biological or adoptive parents of adoptees are not generally representative of the population at large. Adoption agencies see it as their task to try to find ideal homes for their adoptees. Because of this, adoptive parents have higher socio-economic status and lower rates of drug, alcohol, and psychiatric problems than are found in the general population. The biological relatives of adoptees are also not really a random sampling either, but the nature of the bias varies with social circumstances and historical period. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Flint, Jonathan; Greenspan, Ralph J.; Kendler, Kenneth S. (28 January 2010). How Genes Influence Behavior. Oxford University Press. p. 21. ISBN 978-0-19-955990-9. None of the completed adoption studies of schizophrenia was free of some methodological limitations (as indeed are all human genetic studies—which can never approach laboratory sciences in the degree of the control of the experimental variables). To increase our confidence in the validity of these findings, it would be best to try to replicate these adoption results in a completely different kind of human study that could also separate out the effects of genetic and environmental influences. Fourtunately, there is one such other method—twin studies. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Flint, Jonathan; Greenspan, Ralph J.; Kendler, Kenneth S. (28 January 2010). How Genes Influence Behavior. Oxford University Press. p. 22. ISBN 978-0-19-955990-9. By comparing the degree of correlation for a trait in MZ and DZ pairs, it is possible to infer the role of genetic versus shared environmental factors. Take religious affiliation, for example—whether people self-identify as Catholic, Jewish, Methodist, Baptist, Muslem, etc. Twins strongly resemble one another in their religion, but the degree of resemblance is virtually the same in MZ and DZ twins. These results suggest, consistent with common sense, that genes have nothing to do with one's religious identity. Resemblance in twins for religious affiliation appears to result from shared environmental experiences. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Flint, Jonathan; Greenspan, Ralph J.; Kendler, Kenneth S. (28 January 2010). How Genes Influence Behavior. Oxford University Press. p. 25. ISBN 978-0-19-955990-9. Because heritability is an often misunderstood and sometimes maligned statistic, we want to spend a bit of time explaining what it is and what it is not. [para] Most importantly, heritability is based on the concept of variability. Assume that we are studying height in a population of 5,000 individuals and imagine that we could line up all these individuals from the tallest to the shortest. [para] We would see a great deal of variation, with the largest number of people of middling height and a diminution in numbers at the extremes of the very tall and the very short. We also know that, just as individuals differ in height, they also have differences in their genomes. The extent of DNA variation among humans is still not fully known, but it's definitely there. Heritability is nothing more than the proportion of variation in height (or whatever phenotype we study) that is due to the genetic differences between individuals in the population. This is important enough to express in a different way as the following ratio: Heritability = genetic variance/total variance [para] In this formula, total variance in a trait is in turn broken down into genetic and environmental variance. If height had a heritability of 100%, it would mean that all of its variability could be explained by genetic differences between individuals. In fact, the heritability of height is about 90%. A heritability of 0% would indicate that genes contribute nothing at all to the observed differences between individuals. This is close to what is seen when we study religious affiliation in human populations. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Flint, Jonathan; Greenspan, Ralph J.; Kendler, Kenneth S. (28 January 2010). How Genes Influence Behavior. Oxford University Press. p. 29. ISBN 978-0-19-955990-9. The first methodological concern, and one that Kamin raises, is whether the assumption that the environmental exposures of MZ and DZ twins are equally similar is valid. Standard twin analyses assume that the greater resemblance in MZ twins compared with DZ twins results entirely from sharing greater genetic similarity (the 'equal environment assumption' or EEA for short). {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Flint, Jonathan; Greenspan, Ralph J.; Kendler, Kenneth S. (28 January 2010). How Genes Influence Behavior. Oxford University Press. p. 67. ISBN 978-0-19-955990-9. We need to describe two quite different but sometimes confused ways in which genes and the environment can inter-relate in contributing to the risk of illness. The first mechanism is termed gene-environment interaction (or, as we prefer to call it, genetic control of sensitivity to the environment) and the second is gene-environment correlation (or, as we prefer to say, genetic control of exposure to the environment). {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Flint, Jonathan; Greenspan, Ralph J.; Kendler, Kenneth S. (28 January 2010). How Genes Influence Behavior. Oxford University Press. p. 71. ISBN 978-0-19-955990-9. One important consequence of theses results (as well as the prior findings about gene-environment interaction) is a blurring of the boundaries between genes and environment (or nature and nurture). It won't be possible to understand the action of genes on human behavioral disorders and traits without a consideration of the environment. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Flint, Jonathan; Greenspan, Ralph J.; Kendler, Kenneth S. (28 January 2010). How Genes Influence Behavior. Oxford University Press. p. 134. ISBN 978-0-19-955990-9. The genetic data also tells us something about how the environment affects behavior. The picture is similar to that described in Chapter 4 where we discussed human studies: there are important interactions between genes and the environment. In fact, on aggregate, the total effect of interactions is at least as important as that of the straight, immediate, unadulterated heritability. We can also see this working at a gene level. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Flint, Jonathan; Greenspan, Ralph J.; Kendler, Kenneth S. (28 January 2010). How Genes Influence Behavior. Oxford University Press. p. 136. ISBN 978-0-19-955990-9. The genetic architecture of behavior in rodents is in many ways very similar to what we have seen emerge from human studies. There are many loci contributing to individual variation in behavior and their effect sizes are consistently small. Exactly how many loci and how small is not clear. The genetic effects operate in a complex fashion, often in interaction with the environment. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Flint, Jonathan; Greenspan, Ralph J.; Kendler, Kenneth S. (28 January 2010). How Genes Influence Behavior. Oxford University Press. p. 183. ISBN 978-0-19-955990-9. Heritability testing, gene-environment correlations and interactions, genetic mapping by linkage and association, then genome sequences, catalogues of every gene, every genetic variant, genomic technology that consumes a budget large enough to run a small country, the weight of 21st-century molecular genetics is enough to win an argument that genes produce behavior. But of course they don't. Genes, in fact, merely serve as a library that each cell draws upon when it needs to make proteins. Behavior comes out of the ensemble of cellular activities, and the cells that usually matter most are those in the nervous system. Genetic variations that affect behavior often do so by modifying the activity of neurons, and such modifications result from altering the timing, placement, amount, or effectiveness of a gene's product. The relevant neurons, in turn, take part in the brain's complex circuitry. So we need to look at circuits to understand how behavior is produced out of genetic variation. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Flint, Jonathan; Greenspan, Ralph J.; Kendler, Kenneth S. (28 January 2010). How Genes Influence Behavior. Oxford University Press. p. 209. ISBN 978-0-19-955990-9. Finding genes with a specific role in behavior turns out to be very hard. Genes for behavior, genes that carry a label saying 'my job is to make sure you don't become autistic/murder people/eat too much food' are thin on the ground. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Flint, Jonathan; Greenspan, Ralph J.; Kendler, Kenneth S. (28 January 2010). How Genes Influence Behavior. Oxford University Press. p. 210. ISBN 978-0-19-955990-9. Pleiotropic action, on the scale we've just described, makes the idea of 'a gene for' behavior impossible to maintain. Single genes do not specify behavior, but in combination with each other and with the environment, they may. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Flint, Jonathan; Greenspan, Ralph J.; Kendler, Kenneth S. (28 January 2010). How Genes Influence Behavior. Oxford University Press. p. 210. ISBN 978-0-19-955990-9. Each allele of a gene can potentially contribute in several ways to a phenotype. These contributions, in turn, depend on the partners with which that gene interacts. Variation can thus occur in a restricted portion of a gene's range of activities, if its interacting partners are more sensitive to perturbation in one place than in another. If its interacting partners also come in allelic variants, a further dimension is added. [para] Phenotypic variation in a population, which is what one measures, is thus not a monotonic function of allelic variation. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Flint, Jonathan; Greenspan, Ralph J.; Kendler, Kenneth S. (28 January 2010). How Genes Influence Behavior. Oxford University Press. p. 211. ISBN 978-0-19-955990-9. The two perspectives can be distilled into one: many genes for each behavior (e pluribus unum) and many behaviors from each gene (ex uno plura) (Greenspan, 2004). {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Flint, Jonathan; Greenspan, Ralph J.; Kendler, Kenneth S. (28 January 2010). How Genes Influence Behavior. Oxford University Press. p. 211. ISBN 978-0-19-955990-9. How often might these criteria apply to genes and human behavioral or psychiatric syndromes? The short answer is 'hardly ever.' As we have documented, the strength of the association between the discovered risk genes (and the even fewer that have been replicated) and behavioral phenotypes are quite weak. They account, at most, for a few percentage points of the total liability, and often even less than that. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Flint, Jonathan; Greenspan, Ralph J.; Kendler, Kenneth S. (28 January 2010). How Genes Influence Behavior. Oxford University Press. p. 211. ISBN 978-0-19-955990-9. Do genes have a specific effect on behavior? Almost certainly not. Variation in gene X hardly ever influences trait Y only, because variants in X affect other phenotypes. Almost never are the genetic influences of trait Y restricted to only gene X. Thus, the association between genes and behaviors are not typically one to one, or one to many. Evolution is to blame for this complexity; it is a tinkerer and promiscuous in the use of genes, taking whatever material is to hand to work on. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Flint, Jonathan; Greenspan, Ralph J.; Kendler, Kenneth S. (28 January 2010). How Genes Influence Behavior. Oxford University Press. p. 212. ISBN 978-0-19-955990-9. So, in aggregate, this thought experiment indicates that we are almost never justified in using the language or concept of a 'gene for' a behavior or psychiatric trait. The relationship between genes and behavior is too contingent and indirect for such language to be appropriate. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Flint, Jonathan; Greenspan, Ralph J.; Kendler, Kenneth S. (28 January 2010). How Genes Influence Behavior. Oxford University Press. p. 212. ISBN 978-0-19-955990-9. Gene-environment interaction, while still much under-researched, may be widespread in its effects. It is equally likely that genes, through 'outside the skin pathways,' play critical roles in influencing important aspects of the social or physical environment to which the organism is exposed. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Flint, Jonathan; Greenspan, Ralph J.; Kendler, Kenneth S. (28 January 2010). How Genes Influence Behavior. Oxford University Press. p. 214. ISBN 978-0-19-955990-9. The world of genetics in general and behavioral and psychiatric genetics in particular is, in our view, too 'gene-centric.' If you wanted to be less polite, you could call it 'gene-crazy.' While important, the key issue is how genes actually influence behavior. One important step in this process is identifying the genes that can make a difference, but this is only a start. The real action begins when we try to put these genes back into their gene networks, into nerve cells and nerve networks, and finally into organisms who sit in and interact with their environment. It will not work, we believe, to assume that the little 'bits' of this puzzle all just add together. We know already that they do not. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Flint, Jonathan; Greenspan, Ralph J.; Kendler, Kenneth S. (28 January 2010). How Genes Influence Behavior. Oxford University Press. pp. 214–215. ISBN 978-0-19-955990-9. Many people associate strongly the idea of 'genes' and 'determinism.' If something is 'in your genes' then 'God help you,' because there is nothing you can do about it. As shown by the science we have reviewed in this book, that is not how the world works for most of the behaviors we care about. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Flint, Jonathan; Greenspan, Ralph J.; Kendler, Kenneth S. (28 January 2010). How Genes Influence Behavior. Oxford University Press. p. 216. ISBN 978-0-19-955990-9. 6. Saying that genes influence behavior is not equivalent to saying that genes determine behavior. Thus, the study of genes and behavior will not make obsolete the idea of morality. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Flynn, James R. (2012). Are We Getting Smarter? Rising IQ in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 65. ISBN 978-1-107-60917-4. The race is on. Will the developing world catch the developed world for a mix of economic development and mean IQ? This probably depends on some solution of impending energy, pollution, water, food, and population problems. In addition, some nations are disadvantaged because of climate, geography, markets, and scarce resources. I do not believe genes limit their potential. Lynn, ever respectful of evidence and impressed by recent trends, has recently granted that the IQ gap between developed and developing nations may close (Khaleefa et al., 2008). {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Flynn, James R. (2012). Are We Getting Smarter? Rising IQ in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 65. ISBN 978-1-107-60917-4. Always keep in mind: few developing nations have a mean IQ, measured against current norms, as low as the mean the US had in 1900. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Flynn, James R. (2012). Are We Getting Smarter? Rising IQ in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 168. ISBN 978-1-107-60917-4. The Dickens-Flynn model calls these loops the individual multiplier. It is encouraging to note that Haworth et al. (2010) endorse the concept of an individual multiplier to explain (as does the model) the rise of heritability with age. They studied 11,000 pairs of twins and found that the genetic proportion of IQ variance rose from 0.41 at age 9 to 0.66 at age 17. To quote (p. 1112): 'We suggest that the answer lies with genotype-environment correlation: as children grow up, they increasingly select, modify and even create their own experiences in part based on their genetic propensities.' {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Flynn, James R. (2012). Are We Getting Smarter? Rising IQ in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 178–179. ISBN 978-1-107-60917-4. Their dilemma is also the product of limited racial intermarriage. In 1900, when Irish-American women found half of Iris-American males dysfunctional, they could marry Swedes, Italians, and even Englishmen. The fact that they could marry out gave them a huge pool of promising partners. Black women are trapped. Indeed, they are net losers from what interracial marriage exists: five black men leave the pool of potential spouses to partner nonblack women, while only two black women find a long-term spouse outside their race (Flynn, 2008). Every generation of black American women face a marriage market worse than that of Russian women after World War II, which left 70 Russian men alive for every 100 women. The USSR accepted that there would be many solo-mother homes. Black American women are given lectures. Their president advises them 'not to lie down with any fool,' as if there were enough nonfools to go around. [para] Lynn (2002a) asserts that the fact that black American women have a more negative attitude toward marriage is a sign of psychosis. Their attitudes are not symptoms of mental illness but recognition of their social circumstances. We may see their plight as a collection of 'personal problems,' but that says more about us than about them. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Flynn, James R. (2012). Are We Getting Smarter? Rising IQ in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 184. ISBN 978-1-107-60917-4. Despite spurious appeals to traditional rules of evidence, more judges are beginning to understand the relevance of obsolete norms to the IQ scores of offenders in capital cases. Solid data now reveal grave discrepancies between the two tests recommended for capital cases: the Wechsler tests (particularly the WAIS-III) give much higher IQs in the retardate range than the Stanford-Binet (Silverman et al., 2010). {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Flynn, James R. (2012). Are We Getting Smarter? Rising IQ in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 184–185. ISBN 978-1-107-60917-4. In addition, we are now aware that a whole range of clinical measuring instruments, certainly memory tests, are also suspect because of obsolete norms (Baxendale, 2010; Ronnlunda & Nilsson, 2009). We must give high priority to determining which are deceptive and by how much. It is depressing that the literature, even in journals devoted to mental retardation, shows a lack of awareness of the information needed to interpret IQ scores: what test, when it was normed, when it was sat, what rate of obsolescence, whether it is really adequate at low-IQ levels (Liu et al., 2012); and if relevant, what national differences may exist (Roivainen, 2009). {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Flynn, James R. (2012). Are We Getting Smarter? Rising IQ in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-60917-4. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Freeman, Joan (2010). Gifted Lives: What Happens when Gifted Children Grow Up. London: Routledge. p. 4–5. ISBN 978-0-415-47009-4. The essential message from this follow-up of gifted and talented children compared with the non-gifted is that they are normal people–but with one big difference–their extraordinary abilities. Unfortunately, other people may react negatively to their exceptionality, and in very different ways. Some of the gifted were exploited for adult glory, while others found their feelings of self-worth squashed for being 'too clever by half'. Too many had to cope with teacher put-downs in class. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Freeman, Joan (2010). Gifted Lives: What Happens when Gifted Children Grow Up. London: Routledge. p. 5. ISBN 978-0-415-47009-4. Many times across the decades, I've seen how two youngsters with the same high potential reacted quite differently to a similar obstacle in life. There were two youths, for instance, with very high school-leaving qualifications who faced the same challenge of gaining entry to Oxford University—both having already been turned down. One boy, together with his mother, took a train to the university and knocked on the doors of college after college demanding to be seen, until he managed to gain acceptance by one of them. The other boy's family and headteacher thought perhaps he had aimed too high and retreated without even trying. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Freeman, Joan (2010). Gifted Lives: What Happens when Gifted Children Grow Up. London: Routledge. p. 6. ISBN 978-0-415-47009-4. Descriptions of giftedness usually depend on what is being looked for, whether IQ scores, school marks, solving paper-and-pencil puzzles or creative work recognised by an expert. It is strange that gifts which are vital to the health of a society such as entrepreneurship, economics or people-management are rarely considered by schools. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Freeman, Joan (2010). Gifted Lives: What Happens when Gifted Children Grow Up. London: Routledge. p. 8. ISBN 978-0-415-47009-4. But my long involvement with truly gifted individuals in their daily lives has discovered a very different and much more complex picture than the stereotype of the strange gifted boy. I found friendly normal people with some exceptional abilities. But because of those abilities they had to deal with growing up in a world which sometimes sought to exploit them and sometimes stood too far back in awe to give them the support they needed. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Freeman, Joan (2010). Gifted Lives: What Happens when Gifted Children Grow Up. London: Routledge. p. 9. ISBN 978-0-415-47009-4. Early on, I discovered that certain children get picked as gifted and talented in particular situations. In a school with an average ability level, for instance, teachers would point me to children who they saw as gifted, but who would have been below average in a high-powered school. Other children failed to get sufficient chances or encouragement to develop their natural gifts, found life frustrating and lowered their sights to what was expected of them. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Freeman, Joan (2010). Gifted Lives: What Happens when Gifted Children Grow Up. London: Routledge. p. 10. ISBN 978-0-415-47009-4. Any labelling of children does make a difference to their growing sense of who they are. In the first big statistical analyses of the vast data I'd collected by 1980, I found that the children whose parents had identified them as gifted had emotional problems far more frequently than identically gifted but unlabelled children. Thanks to the home visits and the long conversations, I was able to find out why—the children labelled by their parents as gifted were also far more likely to have troubled home backgrounds. This was not always so, but significantly more frequent for the labelled gifted children than any of the others. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Freeman, Joan (2010). Gifted Lives: What Happens when Gifted Children Grow Up. London: Routledge. pp. 10–11. ISBN 978-0-415-47009-4. No matter how high your potential when you are born, the big barriers of poverty and social disapproval can wreak havoc in your life. To reach success and happiness you need opportunities—generous, appropriate learning material, good teaching with consistent challenge, examples to follow, motivation for the long hous of practice and the personal courage to take a chance. There's no formula for producing a gifted child or a gifted adult, but we know that without high-quality material provision and consistent high-level teaching, potential gifts cannot be realised. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Freeman, Joan (2010). Gifted Lives: What Happens when Gifted Children Grow Up. London: Routledge. pp. 27–28. ISBN 978-0-415-47009-4. A body of extremely well-funded American research promotes the idea that acceleration is the schooling of choice for the gifted—though entirely unsupported by any kind of in-depth long follow-up. An Australian, Professor Miraca Gross, investigated 15 very high IQ children for some years. Their lives were bleak, she claims, because they had to suffer normal schooling. She found them to have 'moderate to severe levels of depression', not to mention 'loneliness, social isolation and bitter unhappiness' in the regular classroom. Their terrible lives, she concluded, were due to their giftedness, and the particular fault lay with the attitudes of her fellow Australians. Maybe gifted Australians, such as Germaine Greer, Clive James, Cate Blanchett, Paul Hogan, Kylie Minogue and Barry Humphries, had to have extraordinary powers of resistance to the fate of Antipodean gifted children—'boredom, deliberate under-achievement and lack of motivation'. However, as she made no comparisons of these 15 with any others down-under, it is difficult to tell whether the youngsters in her study were even representative of Australian high IQ children. Deeper personal investigation of their lives might have found out why they were so unhappy. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Freeman, Joan (2010). Gifted Lives: What Happens when Gifted Children Grow Up. London: Routledge. pp. 109–110. ISBN 978-0-415-47009-4. Leo Tolstoy called boredom, 'The desire for desires'. Some claim that gifted children suffer from it more than other children. It's a fact, though, that almost all children are bored in school at some point, and very many are turned off school learning altogether by it. Bored children are to be found in the streets during school hours, demon-strating with their feet how they feel. And they are rarely gifted. When they do turn up at school, they don't learn as well as they could. [Para] In this long research of mine, I found that the parents of the gifted who claimed that their children were bored at school had far more emotional problems at home than the parents of the other children, and at a highly significant statistical level. Interestingly, there could be a distinct difference between the parents' and the chldren's ideas about school boredom. The complaints of boredom generally came from the parents: the gifted children themselves rarely complained of it. [Para] Tow major reasons for the children's boredom emerged. The first was because of the problems at home which caused them psychological disturbance so that they found it hard to concentrate and take pleasure in their learning. The second reason was that they thought differently from the way the school expected them to. Like the future architect, many were creative and had great difficulty in shutting down their lively minds to fit in with the school regime. So often, the talents they had to offer in terms of quirky thinking and fresh approaches to a subject were brushed aside in favour of more paperwork and memorising. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Freeman, Joan (2010). Gifted Lives: What Happens when Gifted Children Grow Up. London: Routledge. p. 112. ISBN 978-0-415-47009-4. I have to admit to sympathy with Baker. It had been a longterm habit of mine to remove myself from school from time to time throughout all the years I was obliged to attend. I discovered many ways to convince teachers that I was on official business elsewhere. At my selective girls' grammar school I would perhaps be 'visiting the dentist', if questioned outside. Many times I just took the odd lesson off if I felt like it or hadn't done my homework. Sometimes, I would plead a headache, and spend a pleasant hour or two absorbed in a book in the sick-room. In that little room, lying on the bed's flowered cotton coverlet, with the window open over the tennis courts, was much better than having my mind commandeered in lessons in which I had no interest. Did it do my academic career any harm? Probably. But I rather enjoyed having that occasional control over my own life. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Freeman, Joan (2010). Gifted Lives: What Happens when Gifted Children Grow Up. London: Routledge. pp. 112–113. ISBN 978-0-415-47009-4. But truancy may not be as devastating for the gifted who can learn so much more swiftly than others in the class. because it was so in-depth, this investigation was able to show that taking an occasional lesson off, or sometimes a day or two, was fairly common. Even Albert Einstein used to do it. Peter Smith in his book Einstein quotes him, 'Some lectures I followed with intense interest. Otherwise, I skipped many and studied the masters of theoretical physics with religious dedication at home.' When you have the capacity to fly intellectually, perhaps you don't need to attend every single school lesson. Sometimes too much didactic teaching consumes the energy and space that a young gifted mind needs to follow up independent and creative thought. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Freeman, Joan (2010). Gifted Lives: What Happens when Gifted Children Grow Up. London: Routledge. p. 113. ISBN 978-0-415-47009-4. There is also a kind of semi-official time away from lessons in flexible schools. Teachers are trusted sufficiently to recognise the need for the gifted to have responsible time on their own. They can offer their high-achieving pupils library time to catch up on work, or reflective time to consider their work more deeply. Bright youngsters really appreciate the privilege and use it productively. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Freeman, Joan (2010). Gifted Lives: What Happens when Gifted Children Grow Up. London: Routledge. p. 127. ISBN 978-0-415-47009-4. In one clever experiment in the USA, social gifts were measured with children between the ages of three and six. They were asked to choose from a range of toys what another child would like as a birthday present. It emerged that the more intelligent the child, the more likely they were to choose what the other child would like—confirmed on the receiving end. So, it seemed that the higher a child's intelligence, the more empathetic they were. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Freeman, Joan (2010). Gifted Lives: What Happens when Gifted Children Grow Up. London: Routledge. p. 128. ISBN 978-0-415-47009-4. The main problem is that emotional intelligence overlaps considerably with ideas of personality. And the theory does not recognise the big variations in culture. What may be welcome as empathy in one culture may be offensive in another. take personal space, for example. This is the space around a person which they regard as psychologically theirs. This can be seen when you are standing in a queue or at a shop counter where you are waiting to be served. If someone from a different culture stands too close, it can seem threatening. In a social situation, if they stand too far away it might seem unfriendly. In all cultures, richer people and those of higher status are normally given more space. For lovers—personal space entirely disappears. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Freeman, Joan (2010). Gifted Lives: What Happens when Gifted Children Grow Up. London: Routledge. p. 136. ISBN 978-0-415-47009-4. It is so often thought that there is a relationship between morality and giftedness. But opinion is like a coin with its two sides. Either the gifted are seen as having a higher morality—and so are selected for leadership courses (notably in the USA), or else they are seen as morally more fragile—and will turn to delinquency more readily than others. Even boredom in school is claimed to afflict the gifted more than other children and so cause them this immorality. Yet, in my detailed overview for the UK government of world-wide scientific research on the development of the gifted, I could not find the slightest evidence of either greater moral strength or moral weakness among the gifted. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Freeman, Joan (2010). Gifted Lives: What Happens when Gifted Children Grow Up. London: Routledge. pp. 205–206. ISBN 978-0-415-47009-4. The question I started with in this long research, was why some children were designated as gifted, while others—of identical measured ability—were not. I wanted to know how the label of gifted child had affected the bearer as they grew up. Margaret, in her complicated life, mirrored a lot of what I had found in others. Most importantly, the children who had been volunteered by their parents as gifted were more likely to have more emotional problems. They were likely to have fewer friends and be more 'difficult', meaning that they were often more troubled by problems of a 'nervous' type, such as poor sleep, poor co-ordination, and asthma. These were problems associated with a stereotype of the gifted child. but I discovered that such problems were not the result of the gifts themselves, but of other matters in a child's life, as Margaret's showed so poignantly. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Freeman, Joan (2010). Gifted Lives: What Happens when Gifted Children Grow Up. London: Routledge. p. 279. ISBN 978-0-415-47009-4. Genius, though, is something different. The term implies some inexplicable mystical quality inducing awe, and is a far rarer accolade than even a Nobel Prize. But ideas of genius change. It cannot exist independently of a culture—one has to be a genius in something. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Freeman, Joan (2010). Gifted Lives: What Happens when Gifted Children Grow Up. London: Routledge. p. 280. ISBN 978-0-415-47009-4. In the twenty-first century, though, independent geniuses seem to be getting rather thin on the ground. Scientific creativity, in particular, is now so often dependent on teamwork with highly specialised and expensive equipment that it is hard to distinguish a single genius. Even by 1676, Isaac Newton had detected the trend away from individual discovery, writing, 'If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.' {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Freeman, Joan (2010). Gifted Lives: What Happens when Gifted Children Grow Up. London: Routledge. pp. 282–283. ISBN 978-0-415-47009-4. Any relationship between early precocity and geniuses is unsure, as John Radford found in his overview Child Prodigies and Exceptional Early Achievers. He concluded that it is almost impossible to predict true adult giftedness from childhood. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Freeman, Joan (2010). Gifted Lives: What Happens when Gifted Children Grow Up. London: Routledge. p. 284. ISBN 978-0-415-47009-4. There are parents who would like their child to be a world leader in something—anything. The world is not short of efforts, some of them rather strange. There was, for example, the Repository for Germinal Choice in Pasadena, California, otherwise known as the Nobel Sperm Bank. There, a woman could buy frozen sperm of the finest quality, donated by men with the finest minds. Her required abilities were limited to being able to pay for and bear the child. Her own genes were not seen as part of the equation by the man who set it up. Between 1980 and 1999, women flocked to the powerful freezers. it was a bit (um) seedy, the selection of the sperm donors being partly aimed at stopping the 'wrong' kind of people reproducing. But even Einstein couldn't manage to reproduce his genius in his children. Nobody knows how many of these 'Nobel Bank' babies were born, and as the records were haphazard, hundreds were unknowingly related to each other because some men donated a great deal of sperm. Of the thousands born, the only child measured with an extremely high IQ, rejected everything that his mother had striven so hard for. Instead, he spent his life playing his guitar in the Californian sun while trying to be spiritually a better person. The sperm bank folded. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Freeman, Joan (2010). Gifted Lives: What Happens when Gifted Children Grow Up. London: Routledge. p. 286. ISBN 978-0-415-47009-4. Sufiah Yusof started her maths degree at Oxford, in 2000, at the age of 13. She too had been dominated and taught by her father. But she ran away the day after her final exam. She was found by police but refused to go home, demanding of her father in an e-mail: 'Has it ever crossed your mind that the reason I left home was because I've finally had enough of 15 years of physical and emotional abuse?' Her father claimed she'd been abducted and brain-washed. She refuses to communicate with him. She is now a very happy high-class, high-earning prostitute. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Freeman, Joan (2010). Gifted Lives: What Happens when Gifted Children Grow Up. London: Routledge. p. 287. ISBN 978-0-415-47009-4. Albert Einstein's boyhood home was cultured, but not more so than thousands of others in Zurich of that time. A gifted child, he had a normal Swiss basic education. Myths about little Albert's school problems are widespread. Yet the truth is very different. His mother, Pauline, wrote in a letter to Albert's grandmother on 1 August 1886, 'Yesterday, Albert received his grades, he was again number one, his report card was brilliant.' He had also been accelerated at school and entered the Zurich Polytechnic a year early. It is strange that so many rumours about Albert's school days refer to him as poor at his school work and some even say he was dyslexic, even with Asperger syndrome. In my considerable reading on his life, which quotes the original sources, there is not a whisper of any scholastic or emotional problems, only political and emotional problems from his teachers. [Para] In spite of Einstein's continually outstanding achievements, no teacher in the Luitpold Gymnasium would mentor him personally in the rigid system of that time. He faced authoritarian teachers who would brook no argument, fellow pupils who passively wrote down what their teachers told them, and years of mind-numbing rote learning. That negative atmosphere could have been exacerbated by his perky self-confidence in his own ideas, and also his being Jewish. But his spirit was strong. It was Einstein himself who turned his humble clerking job at the patent office to his own advantage—by using it to think. With that intellectual freedom, by his early twenties he was on the brink of world leadership in theoretical physics. Thousands of others had experienced the same barriers and opportunities as he had, but Albert Einstein, the genius, overcame his negative environment to change the world. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Freeman, Joan (2010). Gifted Lives: What Happens when Gifted Children Grow Up. London: Routledge. p. 289. ISBN 978-0-415-47009-4. Like most things in life, everyday intelligence can be improved with practice. The more frequently you do something, the better you will become at doing it. To a limited extent, measurable intelligence can also be increased by training in the kind of learning that is tapped by intelligence tests, that is, by the study of almost any subject. It may be why the intelligence level of Japanese school children is steadily going up more than that of other nations. They stay at school longer and work harder while they are there. Most people's intelligence could doubtless be used more efficiently and effectively. No=one, though, has yet discovered how to increase intelligence to the extent that slow learners could function even at an average level. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Freeman, Joan (2010). Gifted Lives: What Happens when Gifted Children Grow Up. London: Routledge. p. 288. ISBN 978-0-415-47009-4. Strangely, in the ten years since the millennium, none of the Indigo children has been seen to be outstanding in earthly terms. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Freeman, Joan (2010). Gifted Lives: What Happens when Gifted Children Grow Up. London: Routledge. p. 290. ISBN 978-0-415-47009-4. No child prodigies have ever, as children, managed to change the area of their advancement, and by the same token, the geniuses who did change the world were rarely child prodigies. It is rare to find in a child the spark, the psazz, that turns the humdrum writer into a Charles Dickens or the back-row violinist into an Anne-Sophie Mutter, who at 13 played with the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra. No amount of diligent practice can make the heart of the listener leap. No writing about Shakespeare has ever approached his genius. How dry scholars and critics seem, compared with Shakespeare's own words, such as, 'Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?' {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Freeman, Joan (2010). Gifted Lives: What Happens when Gifted Children Grow Up. London: Routledge. p. 290. ISBN 978-0-415-47009-4. Although potential is present at birth, it will not 'automatically' emerge over the course of time unless the conditions are right. No-one can perform better than their personal genetic inheritance will allow, so there is no such thing as 'overachievement' brought about by 'hot-housing' or pushy parents. A performance can, though, be more polished. Alas, performing at a lower level than one's full potential is all too common. The diminishing of a child's feelings of worth, stereotyping of the gender-role or negative social attitudes can all place limitations on a child's development. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Freeman, Joan (2010). Gifted Lives: What Happens when Gifted Children Grow Up. London: Routledge. pp. 290–291. ISBN 978-0-415-47009-4. A strange new phenomenon has been growing since about 1950, called the 'Flynn Effect' after Professor James Flynn of the University of Otago, New Zealand. In his book What is Intelligence ?, Flynn describes a year-on-year rise in measured intelligence, about three IQ points a decade. Yet while advanced countries may even be reaching a plateau by now, developing countries have yet to see it at all. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Freeman, Joan (2010). Gifted Lives: What Happens when Gifted Children Grow Up. London: Routledge. p. 293. ISBN 978-0-415-47009-4. But nobody is totally dominated by either side of the brain. We use both all the time to a greater or lesser extent, depending on the job in hand. In fact, too much hemispheric dominance can be troublesome because any breakdown in brain connectivity can result in mental deficits. Dyslexia, for example, is thought to come from too much right-hemisphere dominance, which disrupts the connections between the hemispheres. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Freeman, Joan (2010). Gifted Lives: What Happens when Gifted Children Grow Up. London: Routledge. p. 294. ISBN 978-0-415-47009-4. After all these years, I am certain that to take just one aspect of a child's life, giftedness, as a basis for making decisions which will affect them for the rest of their lives, is to risk their emotional balance, and even their success in life. What are seen as gifts and talents are not only part of the whole person but also part of the society they live in. Quite a few in my study, now approaching middle-age, are still paying for decisions taken wrongly on their behalves in childhood because of that label. Being gifted, whatever the stereotype might be, was so often taken as the youngster's fundamental nature. It informed the world who they were. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Goldhaber, Dale (9 July 2012). The Nature-Nurture Debates: Bridging the Gap. Cambridge University Press. p. 62. ISBN 978-0-521-14879-5. Retrieved 24 November 2013. Behavior geneticists are interested in differential influence, not influence per se. No one is suggesting that parents do not have an influence on their children with respect to what these children are like. Rather, the issue for the behavior geneticist is not what the children are like but rather how alike they are. Statistically, what the children are like is typically measured by mean differences: Do children reared one way do better in school, on average, than those reared a different way? But for the behavior geneticists, the issue is not average differences but rather is a comparison of differences in the degree of variability between groups of children. It might sound like the two are really the same but they are not, and, in fact, statistically, they are actually independent of each other. For example, there are data documenting the fact that adopted children's IQ scores correlate higher with those of their biological parents than with those of their adopted parents (i.e., the adopted child with the highest IQ score had a biological mother with the highest IQ score, etc.) but, at the same time, the adopted children's actual IQ scores are more similar to those of their adopted parents than to those of their biological parents, that is, the adopted children's mean IQ scores are closer to those of the adopted parents than to those of the biological parents. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Goldhaber, Dale (9 July 2012). The Nature-Nurture Debates: Bridging the Gap. Cambridge University Press. p. 62. ISBN 978-0-521-14879-5. Retrieved 24 November 2013. Good research designs allow for the collection of data in the most scientifically rigorous way as possible. However, because data are almost always collected from a sample of a population rather than from the entire population, there still needs to be a way of determining the likelihood of the data from the sample being representative of the population from which they were drawn. Here is where the statistics come in and, in the case of behavior genetics, much of the controversy. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Goldhaber, Dale (9 July 2012). The Nature-Nurture Debates: Bridging the Gap. Cambridge University Press. p. 65–66. ISBN 978-0-521-14879-5. Retrieved 24 November 2013. Although there are many people pursuing behavior genetic research, the work of two of these scholars is perhaps most significant, both in terms of the volume of their efforts and in terms of its visibility. These two individuals are Robert Plomin and Sandra Scarr. It is worth looking closely at the work of each because doing so provides an excellent illustration of what behavior genetic research is all about. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Goldhaber, Dale (9 July 2012). The Nature-Nurture Debates: Bridging the Gap. Cambridge University Press. p. 70. ISBN 978-0-521-14879-5. Retrieved 24 November 2013. Plomin also believes that the generalist gene hypothesis leads to the conclusion that children with either learning disorders or exceptional learning abilities do not have unique genotypes compared with more typical children but rather are simply children at either end of the generalist continuum. As he puts it, the abnormal is normal. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Goldhaber, Dale (9 July 2012). The Nature-Nurture Debates: Bridging the Gap. Cambridge University Press. p. 70. ISBN 978-0-521-14879-5. Retrieved 24 November 2013. As is true of virtually all human behavior genetic data, the TEDS data are correlational; they show a pattern of relationship between variables. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Gottfredson, Linda S. (2003). "Chapter 3: The Science and Politics of Intelligence in Gifted Education". In Colangelo, Nicholas; Davis, Gary A. (eds.). Handbook of Gifted Education. Julian C. Stanley (Guest Foreword). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. p. 24. ISBN 978-0-205-34063-7. Nor are the critics persuaded when gifted educators cite the research evidence—for example, that ability grouping and accelerated instruction enhance the performance of intellectually gifted students without harming the less able (Kulik & Kulik, 1997; Page & Keith, 1994). Or that gifted children thrive on the challenge of more demanding work and, on the other hand, resent being exploited in mixed-ability classrooms as either as tutors or workhorses in cooperative-learning groups (Colangelo & Davis, 1997; Robinson, 1997). {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Gottfredson, Linda S. (2003). "Chapter 3: The Science and Politics of Intelligence in Gifted Education". In Colangelo, Nicholas; Davis, Gary A. (eds.). Handbook of Gifted Education. Julian C. Stanley (Guest Foreword). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. p. 26. ISBN 978-0-205-34063-7. The existence of a strong general factor does not mean that intelligence is the only mental ability or a unitary mental process. People rightly have a broader conception of human talent, and the argument for a g factor—a general intelligence factor—should not be misconstrued as an argument that intellectual ability or achievement itself is unidimensional. Different mental abilities are only moderately to moderately highly correlated, and factor analyses show that the g factor accounts for only about half the variance in scores in any broad battery of mental tests. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Gottfredson, Linda S. (2003). "Chapter 3: The Science and Politics of Intelligence in Gifted Education". In Colangelo, Nicholas; Davis, Gary A. (eds.). Handbook of Gifted Education. Julian C. Stanley (Guest Foreword). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. p. 26. ISBN 978-0-205-34063-7. The point is that a highly general intelligence factor forms the common core for all mental abilities yet studied. It is therefore likely that a favorable g level forms an essential foundation for most, if not all, highly valued forms of cultural achievement, such as in music, the arts, science, and politics. High intelligence obviously is not sufficient for high levels of achievement, but it may be necessary. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Gottfredson, Linda S. (2003). "Chapter 3: The Science and Politics of Intelligence in Gifted Education". In Colangelo, Nicholas; Davis, Gary A. (eds.). Handbook of Gifted Education. Julian C. Stanley (Guest Foreword). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. p. 26. ISBN 978-0-205-34063-7. Intelligence researchers now favor what they call the hierarchical model of cognitive abilities (Deary, 2000). It is a major advance in the field of intelligence because it unifies major theories that had once been thought irreconcilable. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Gottfredson, Linda S. (2003). "Chapter 3: The Science and Politics of Intelligence in Gifted Education". In Colangelo, Nicholas; Davis, Gary A. (eds.). Handbook of Gifted Education. Julian C. Stanley (Guest Foreword). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. p. 28. ISBN 978-0-205-34063-7. Research has, however, discovered a kernel of truth to multiple intelligence theory that is relevant to gifted education. Although different abilities tend to come bundled together (if you are high in one you tend to be high in all others), this linkage seems to get looser at higher IQ levels (Detterman & Daniel, 1989; see literature review by Jensen, 1998). That is, whereas low-IQ people tend to be low in all mental abilities, high-IQ people are not as likely to be high in all abilities. The latter's ability profiles are more uneven. To paraphrase past summaries of the finding, 'dullness is general but giftedness is not.' {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Gottfredson, Linda S. (2003). "Chapter 3: The Science and Politics of Intelligence in Gifted Education". In Colangelo, Nicholas; Davis, Gary A. (eds.). Handbook of Gifted Education. Julian C. Stanley (Guest Foreword). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. p. 28. ISBN 978-0-205-34063-7. The most important fact about the distribution of general intelligence is this: Most people cluster around the average IQ and are therefore much alike, but there is a significant minority of individuals at the extremes of high and low intelligence and who are thus quite unlike the average person. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Gottfredson, Linda S. (2003). "Chapter 3: The Science and Politics of Intelligence in Gifted Education". In Colangelo, Nicholas; Davis, Gary A. (eds.). Handbook of Gifted Education. Julian C. Stanley (Guest Foreword). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. p. 32. ISBN 978-0-205-34063-7. When behavioral geneticists speak of the heritability of a trait, they are actually using a short-hand phrase that can be easily misunderstood. Degree of heritability—say, 40 percent or 80 percent—is not a physical constant, free of time and place, like absolute zero in temperature. Heritability is simply the proportion of (a) phenotypic (observed) variation in an attribute that can be attributed to (b) genotypic variation in the group studied. Heritability estimates therefore apply only to environments and populations like the ones studied, not to all possible ones. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Gottfredson, Linda S. (2003). "Chapter 3: The Science and Politics of Intelligence in Gifted Education". In Colangelo, Nicholas; Davis, Gary A. (eds.). Handbook of Gifted Education. Julian C. Stanley (Guest Foreword). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. p. 32. ISBN 978-0-205-34063-7. Current estimates of heritability have been derived from populations in rich and poor, Western and non-Western populations, but not often from the extremes of environmental privilege or deprivation. The emerging pattern of estimates, therefore, may not apply to all human groups. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Gottfredson, Linda S. (2003). "Chapter 3: The Science and Politics of Intelligence in Gifted Education". In Colangelo, Nicholas; Davis, Gary A. (eds.). Handbook of Gifted Education. Julian C. Stanley (Guest Foreword). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. p. 33. ISBN 978-0-205-34063-7. How could it be that intelligence becomes more genetic with age while the influences of family advantage and disadvantage vanish? Currently, the major theory is that people to some extent seek out and create their own environments based on their genetic proclivities. Scarr's 'niche-seeking' theory (Scarr & McCartney, 1983), which is similar to Bouchard and colleagues' 'genes-drive-experience' theory (Bouchard, Lykken, Tellegen, & McGue, 1994), is that children increasingly choose and change their own environments as they become more independent of their families. They bring their environments more in line with their latent tastes and abilities, which further enhances the development of those tastes and abilities. Early shared family influences cease to operate about the age when children leave home. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Gottfredson, Linda S. (2003). "Chapter 3: The Science and Politics of Intelligence in Gifted Education". In Colangelo, Nicholas; Davis, Gary A. (eds.). Handbook of Gifted Education. Julian C. Stanley (Guest Foreword). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. p. 33. ISBN 978-0-205-34063-7. The genes-drive-experience-and -niche-seeking theory supports the notion that individuals have a hand in creating themselves and their own destiny. It tells us that we are not the hapless putty of either nature or nurture. It also seems consistent with observations of gifted children. Many of them are relentless in reshaping their environments. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Gottfredson, Linda S. (2003). "Chapter 3: The Science and Politics of Intelligence in Gifted Education". In Colangelo, Nicholas; Davis, Gary A. (eds.). Handbook of Gifted Education. Julian C. Stanley (Guest Foreword). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. p. 34. ISBN 978-0-205-34063-7. The real question, then, is not whether nature or nurture dominates, but how the two work together. The two forces are not independent and parallel, but the venue for each other's operation. Two phenomena that illustrate this are highly relevant to understanding giftedness: First, our genotypes influence our sensitivity to environments and, second, they influence our exposure to them. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Gottfredson, Linda S. (2003). "Chapter 3: The Science and Politics of Intelligence in Gifted Education". In Colangelo, Nicholas; Davis, Gary A. (eds.). Handbook of Gifted Education. Julian C. Stanley (Guest Foreword). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. p. 34. ISBN 978-0-205-34063-7. The second phenomenon, which is genetically driven exposure to environments, refers to gene-environment correlation. This is simply the fact that genetically distinct individuals (different genotypes) are not randomly distributed across environments. Rather, they tend to be clustered in different environments. This happens partly because the same parental genes that produce the child's genotype also influence the environment the parents create for the child. This is called passive gene-environment correlation. But the most interesting reasons for gene-environment correlations are that people with different geno-types (shyness, aggressiveness, high intelligence, and so on) evoke different responses from their environments, and they also actively create different environments for themselves. These are labeled, respectively, 'evocative' (or reactive) and 'active' gene-environment correlations. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Gottfredson, Linda S. (2003). "Chapter 3: The Science and Politics of Intelligence in Gifted Education". In Colangelo, Nicholas; Davis, Gary A. (eds.). Handbook of Gifted Education. Julian C. Stanley (Guest Foreword). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. p. 35. ISBN 978-0-205-34063-7. g's ability to predict important life outcomes ranges from strong (standardized school achievement), to moderate (job performance), to weak (law-abidingness), {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Gottfredson, Linda S. (2003). "Chapter 3: The Science and Politics of Intelligence in Gifted Education". In Colangelo, Nicholas; Davis, Gary A. (eds.). Handbook of Gifted Education. Julian C. Stanley (Guest Foreword). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. p. 35. ISBN 978-0-205-34063-7. This is not to say, of course, that "g" is the only risk factor in life outcomes, not even that it is the major one in many cases. Other advantages, such as favorable family circumstances, lengthy practice or experience, persistence, or a winning personality can compensate for below-average "g" in some realms of life. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Gottfredson, Linda S. (2003). "Chapter 3: The Science and Politics of Intelligence in Gifted Education". In Colangelo, Nicholas; Davis, Gary A. (eds.). Handbook of Gifted Education. Julian C. Stanley (Guest Foreword). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. p. 37. ISBN 978-0-205-34063-7. In some sense, the story of greatness is the same as for garden-variety success in a culture. Above-average intelligence is probably essential; additional increments are helpful; but even the highest levels of intelligence are not by themselves sufficient. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Gottfredson, Linda S. (2003). "Chapter 3: The Science and Politics of Intelligence in Gifted Education". In Colangelo, Nicholas; Davis, Gary A. (eds.). Handbook of Gifted Education. Julian C. Stanley (Guest Foreword). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. p. 37. ISBN 978-0-205-34063-7. Genius or greatness depends on a confluence of several favorable traits, high intelligence being only one among them. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Gottfredson, Linda S. (2003). "Chapter 3: The Science and Politics of Intelligence in Gifted Education". In Colangelo, Nicholas; Davis, Gary A. (eds.). Handbook of Gifted Education. Julian C. Stanley (Guest Foreword). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. p. 37. ISBN 978-0-205-34063-7. Greatness also tends to be domain-specific rather than general. Mozart was not a Gauss or Shakespeare too. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Gottfredson, Linda; Saklofske, Donald H. (5 March 2012). "1: Intelligence: Foundations and Issues in Assessment (reprint of Gottfredson, L., Saklofske, D. H. (2009) Canadian Psychology (Canadian Journal of Psychology), 50(3): 183–195)". In Boyle, Gregory J; Saklofske, Donald H; Matthews, Gerald (eds.). Psychological Assessment. Vol. 1: Intelligence Assessment. SAGE Publications. pp. 1–24, 2. ISBN 978-0-85702-270-7. Retrieved 4 September 2013. One need not be a close observer to perceive how markedly the interest in mental tests has developed during the past few years. Not very long ago attention to tests was largely restricted to a few laboratory psychologists; now tests have become objects of the attention for many workers whose primary interest is in education, social service, medicine, industrial management and many other fields in which applied psychology promises valuable returns. (Whipple, 1914, p. v) {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Gottfredson, Linda; Saklofske, Donald H. (5 March 2012). "1: Intelligence: Foundations and Issues in Assessment (reprint of Gottfredson, L., Saklofske, D. H. (2009) Canadian Psychology (Canadian Journal of Psychology), 50(3): 183–195)". In Boyle, Gregory J; Saklofske, Donald H; Matthews, Gerald (eds.). Psychological Assessment. Vol. 1: Intelligence Assessment. SAGE Publications. pp. 1–24, 3. ISBN 978-0-85702-270-7. Retrieved 4 September 2013. The lack of agreement on a theory and structure of intelligence is the major reason for so many intelligence tests. Comprehensive tests such as the WISC-IV, WAIS-IV, WJ-III, and Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales - Fifth Edition (Roid, 2003) share a number of similar or overlapping components; all yield a second-order general factor that is at least moderately correlated across these different tests. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Gottfredson, Linda; Saklofske, Donald H. (5 March 2012). "1: Intelligence: Foundations and Issues in Assessment (reprint of Gottfredson, L., Saklofske, D. H. (2009) Canadian Psychology (Canadian Journal of Psychology), 50(3): 183–195)". In Boyle, Gregory J; Saklofske, Donald H; Matthews, Gerald (eds.). Psychological Assessment. Vol. 1: Intelligence Assessment. SAGE Publications. pp. 1–24, 4. ISBN 978-0-85702-270-7. Retrieved 4 September 2013. The study of intelligence involves almost all areas of psychology and other sciences such as neurobiology and behaviour genetics. This has expanded our view of what intelligence is, how it develops, and the many factors that influence it, such as aging (see Deary, Whalley, & Starr, 2009; Kaufman, 2008; Lee, Gorsuch, Saklofske, & Patterson, 2008). It is well established that intelligence is a product of both hereditary and environmental factors and their interaction. But the complexity of intelligence and how we measure it and interpret these measures go much further. Intelligence does not exist or affect human behaviour in isolation. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Gottfredson, Linda; Saklofske, Donald H. (5 March 2012). "1: Intelligence: Foundations and Issues in Assessment (reprint of Gottfredson, L., Saklofske, D. H. (2009) Canadian Psychology (Canadian Journal of Psychology), 50(3): 183–195)". In Boyle, Gregory J; Saklofske, Donald H; Matthews, Gerald (eds.). Psychological Assessment. Vol. 1: Intelligence Assessment. SAGE Publications. pp. 1–24, 5. ISBN 978-0-85702-270-7. Retrieved 4 September 2013. Intelligence testing has been amongst the most controversial topics in psychology and other professional arenas such as education as well as amongst the general public. The construct of intelligence was and still is not universally embraced by all psychologists. Radical behaviourism, social constructivist, interpretist, and other movements within and outside psychology see little value in including intelligence as a basis for describing the human condition. The use of intelligence tests for classifying and placing children into special classes has been challenged in the U.S. courts during the past 30 years. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Gottfredson, Linda; Saklofske, Donald H. (5 March 2012). "1: Intelligence: Foundations and Issues in Assessment (reprint of Gottfredson, L., Saklofske, D. H. (2009) Canadian Psychology (Canadian Journal of Psychology), 50(3): 183–195)". In Boyle, Gregory J; Saklofske, Donald H; Matthews, Gerald (eds.). Psychological Assessment. Vol. 1: Intelligence Assessment. SAGE Publications. pp. 1–24, 9. ISBN 978-0-85702-270-7. Retrieved 4 September 2013. Psychological constructs represent hypotheses about unobservable causal forces, or organizing tendencies, in the human psyche. Psychologists posit a wide variety of them, such as intelligence, extraversion, and emotional stability, to explain why individuals are so consistently different across time and circumstance. Latent traits are hypothesised causal forces whose influence can be mapped and described; we cannot create, nullify, or reconfigure their causal powers by acts of verbal definition or specification. In contrast, we may classify any observed behaviour we wish as an achievement, depending on which human performances we value. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Gottfredson, Linda; Saklofske, Donald H. (5 March 2012). "1: Intelligence: Foundations and Issues in Assessment (reprint of Gottfredson, L., Saklofske, D. H. (2009) Canadian Psychology (Canadian Journal of Psychology), 50(3): 183–195)". In Boyle, Gregory J; Saklofske, Donald H; Matthews, Gerald (eds.). Psychological Assessment. Vol. 1: Intelligence Assessment. SAGE Publications. pp. 1–24, 10. ISBN 978-0-85702-270-7. Retrieved 4 September 2013. Question 1: What Is Intelligence? Trend Away from Debating Definitions toward Debating Discoveries. A scientific answer to this question would describe an empirical phenomenon, not a test. It would therefore derive, not from a priori verbal definitions, but from extensive observation and experimentation. A full answer would cross disciplines and levels of analysis to explain the roots, meaning, and social consequences of human cognitive diversity. That is, explaining "what intelligence is" as a construct requires accumulating an expansive network of evidence that is consistent and coherent—consilient. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Gottfredson, Linda; Saklofske, Donald H. (5 March 2012). "1: Intelligence: Foundations and Issues in Assessment (reprint of Gottfredson, L., Saklofske, D. H. (2009) Canadian Psychology (Canadian Journal of Psychology), 50(3): 183–195)". In Boyle, Gregory J; Saklofske, Donald H; Matthews, Gerald (eds.). Psychological Assessment. Vol. 1: Intelligence Assessment. SAGE Publications. pp. 1–24, 12. ISBN 978-0-85702-270-7. Retrieved 4 September 2013. For researchers, the label intelligence no longer has scientific meaning because it is attached to such diverse phenomena: often to g alone but sometimes to the more domain-specific factors at Stratum II (ignoring g), to the entire hierarchical structure of cognitive abilities, or even to that entirety plus a plethora of noncognitive forms of adaptive behaviour as well. Debates over how to define intelligence are now moot because the various empirical referents to which the term is commonly applied can be distinguished empirically and related within a common conceptual structure. This alone is a big advance in understanding human intelligence. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Gottfredson, Linda; Saklofske, Donald H. (5 March 2012). "1: Intelligence: Foundations and Issues in Assessment (reprint of Gottfredson, L., Saklofske, D. H. (2009) Canadian Psychology (Canadian Journal of Psychology), 50(3): 183–195)". In Boyle, Gregory J; Saklofske, Donald H; Matthews, Gerald (eds.). Psychological Assessment. Vol. 1: Intelligence Assessment. SAGE Publications. pp. 1–24, 18. ISBN 978-0-85702-270-7. Retrieved 4 September 2013. To some extent, the desire for more detailed information is a desire specifically for information about developmental change. This is a different, more tractable matter in intellectual assessment. It requires and external criterion or common yardstick against which to compare individuals of different ages or the same person over time; IQ scores cannot provide that because they reset the average IQ to 100 at each age (are age-normed). Statistical methods are now available for creating a common yardstick for a given factor across different ages (e.g., for g, functional literacy, reading ability), although none can provide truly interval- or ratio-level measurement. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Gottfredson, Linda; Saklofske, Donald H. (5 March 2012). "1: Intelligence: Foundations and Issues in Assessment (reprint of Gottfredson, L., Saklofske, D. H. (2009) Canadian Psychology (Canadian Journal of Psychology), 50(3): 183–195)". In Boyle, Gregory J; Saklofske, Donald H; Matthews, Gerald (eds.). Psychological Assessment. Vol. 1: Intelligence Assessment. SAGE Publications. pp. 1–24, 20. ISBN 978-0-85702-270-7. Retrieved 4 September 2013. For example, the average gap between White and both African American and Hispanic FSIQ scores on the WISC-IV FSIQ is 10 points (Weiss et al., 2006). Gaps may wax and wane somewhat, but are vexingly large and persisting (Jencks & Phillips, 1998; Jensen, 1998) This is one reason why some people argue that unbiased tests are not necessarily fair tests. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Gottfredson, Linda; Saklofske, Donald H. (5 March 2012). "1: Intelligence: Foundations and Issues in Assessment (reprint of Gottfredson, L., Saklofske, D. H. (2009) Canadian Psychology (Canadian Journal of Psychology), 50(3): 183–195)". In Boyle, Gregory J; Saklofske, Donald H; Matthews, Gerald (eds.). Psychological Assessment. Vol. 1: Intelligence Assessment. SAGE Publications. pp. 1–24, 22. ISBN 978-0-85702-270-7. Retrieved 4 September 2013. The shift toward framing social utility as if it were just another technical matter in adjudicating test validity is both embodied by and hidden in the noting of consequential validity, introduced in the 1980s. The wise psychologist using intelligence tests today will know that key factors such as affluence and education are highly correlated with FSIQ (Georgas et al., 2008), and that factors such as parent education, income, and expectations have reduced the WISC-IV FSIQ discrepancies to 6 points for Whites and African Americans and essentially 0 for White compared with Hispanic groups. So again, it is not the test but how we use it that is the issue here. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Gottfredson, Linda; Saklofske, Donald H. (5 March 2012). "1: Intelligence: Foundations and Issues in Assessment (reprint of Gottfredson, L., Saklofske, D. H. (2009) Canadian Psychology (Canadian Journal of Psychology), 50(3): 183–195)". In Boyle, Gregory J; Saklofske, Donald H; Matthews, Gerald (eds.). Psychological Assessment. Vol. 1: Intelligence Assessment. SAGE Publications. pp. 1–24, 23. ISBN 978-0-85702-270-7. Retrieved 4 September 2013. Language and spatial visualisation are more localised in the brain, which allows their associated psychometric factors to vary somewhat independently. g is most certainly not unitary at the genetic level. Approximately a third of our genes are expressed in the brain, and current thinking amongst behaviour geneticists is that no single gene will account for more than a miniscule amount of the variance in normal intelligence. [Para] Psychophysical measures of intellectual strength seem feasible in principle but unlikely in practise. But they do have one tremendous advantage that psychometric tests lack - ratio measurement. Speed (distance per time) is like height, weight, and many other physiological measures in that it has a zero point and is counted in equal units from there. No psychological scale can currently do that, either count from zero (total absence) or in equal units of quantity. Ratio measures of brain function might be exploited in some manner to provide more criterion-related or developmentally informative interpretations of psychometric tests. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Hertberg-Davis, Holly L.; Callahan, Carolyn M. (21 August 2012). "Chapter 1: Introduction". In Callahan, Carolyn M.; Hertberg-Davis, Holly L. (eds.). Fundamentals of Gifted Education: Considering Multiple Perspectives. Routledge. p. 7. ISBN 978-1-136-94643-1. While parents and many educators have long recognized the serious lack of attention to addressing gifted students' needs in America's schools, the documentation of classroom practices relative to the gifted child in the current school climate began with the report of the Marland Commission in 1972. The commission concluded: [Para] Gifted and Talented children are, in fact, deprived and can suffer psychological damage and permanent impairment of thier abilities to function well which is equal to or greater than the similar deprivation suffered by any other population with special needs served by the Office of Education. (Marland, 1972, pp. xi–xii)

Hertberg-Davis, Holly L.; Callahan, Carolyn M. (21 August 2012). "Chapter 1: Introduction". In Callahan, Carolyn M.; Hertberg-Davis, Holly L. (eds.). Fundamentals of Gifted Education: Considering Multiple Perspectives. Routledge. p. 9. ISBN 978-1-136-94643-1. First, teachers are not trained to meet the needs of advanced students. Sixty-five percent of teachers report that their education courses and teacher preparation programs focused either very little or not at all on how best to teach academically advanced students; only five states require all teachers to receive pre-service training in gifted and talented education (Farkas & Duffet, 2008; NAGC, 2009).

Hood, Lori (21 August 2012). "Chapter 25: The Effectiveness and Implications of Homeschooling for Gifted Students". In Callahan, Carolyn M.; Hertberg-Davis, Holly L. (eds.). Fundamentals of Gifted Education: Considering Multiple Perspectives. Routledge. pp. 249–250. ISBN 978-1-136-94643-1. The available flexibility of homeschooling allows for forms of pedagogy and curriculum that resonate with gifted education: intense, in-depth focus on a particular subject or project; accelerated pacing; individual mentoring; 'real-world' internships; and accessing programs and coursework within a broader community (Kunzman, 2008, p. 257).

Hood, Lori (21 August 2012). "Chapter 25: The Effectiveness and Implications of Homeschooling for Gifted Students". In Callahan, Carolyn M.; Hertberg-Davis, Holly L. (eds.). Fundamentals of Gifted Education: Considering Multiple Perspectives. Routledge. p. 250. ISBN 978-1-136-94643-1. In the home environment, students and parents have the flexibility to learn without interruption, focus on one topic in depth, and even focus on one subject to the exclusion of others (Ensign, 1997). Often, gifted homeschooled students will work on a subject for several months simply because they are 'turned on' by new insight, excited about the material, or motivated by success. One mother of a highly gifted six-year-old girl reported that her daughter moved through six grade levels in mathematics in less than a year to the exclusion of other topics, only to set mathematics aside and do the same thing with writing for another five months. 'In a public school,' the mother reported, 'there is no way she would have been allowed to do this. No one had to tell her to work on math or writing; she did it because she was excited and motivated about learning.'

Hood, Lori (21 August 2012). "Chapter 25: The Effectiveness and Implications of Homeschooling for Gifted Students". In Callahan, Carolyn M.; Hertberg-Davis, Holly L. (eds.). Fundamentals of Gifted Education: Considering Multiple Perspectives. Routledge. p. 250. ISBN 978-1-136-94643-1. Homeschooling allows students to be radically accelerated and form psychosocially healthy relationships based on common interests and intellectual and developmental age (Gross, 1989).

Hood, Lori (21 August 2012). "Chapter 25: The Effectiveness and Implications of Homeschooling for Gifted Students". In Callahan, Carolyn M.; Hertberg-Davis, Holly L. (eds.). Fundamentals of Gifted Education: Considering Multiple Perspectives. Routledge. p. 252. ISBN 978-1-136-94643-1. Distance learning is another approach to creating a homeschooling curriculum that is often sought out by homeschoolers as a means of accommodating acceleration and enrichment for gifted students (e.g., Adams & Cross, 2000; Brody, 2004; Sounthern & Jones, 2004). There are several programs specifically created to support the gifted: The Duke University Talent Identification Program (Duke TIP; http://www.tip.duke.edu/), the Davidson Institute for Talent Development (www.davidsongifted.org), the Johns Hopkins Center for Talented Youth (http://cty.jhu.edu), the Summer Institute for the Gifted (http://www.cgp-sig.com), the Education Program for Gifted Youth (EPGY) at Stanford University (http://epgy.stanford.edu/) all offer distance learning opportunities. Distance learning may provide opportunities to study advanced subjects beyong the expertise of the students' parents (Wallace, 2009), and may provide the flexibility in terms of pace and level particularly appropriate for gifted students (Adams & Cross, 2000). {{cite book}}: External link in |quote= (help)

Hood, Lori (21 August 2012). "Chapter 25: The Effectiveness and Implications of Homeschooling for Gifted Students". In Callahan, Carolyn M.; Hertberg-Davis, Holly L. (eds.). Fundamentals of Gifted Education: Considering Multiple Perspectives. Routledge. p. 252. ISBN 978-1-136-94643-1. Critics of homeschooling contend that children who are homeschooled lack adequate socialization. The limited research on homeschooling suggests no lack of, or delay in, social development associated with homeschooling (McDowell, as cited by Kim, 2005, para. 2; Montgomery, 1989), yet socialization is still a concern for many. 'The socialization question as it is known among homeschoolers, is actually an omnibus inquiry which usually leads to more specific questions' (Arai, 1999, p. 2). Critics of homeschooling argue that children who are never exposed to traditional schooling will lack the coping skills to deal with real-world problems once they leave the protection of their family (Luffman, 1997; Menendez, 1996; Stough, 1992). However, Webb (1989), one of the few researchers who has examined aspects of the adult lives of wholly or partly home-educated people, found that all who had attempted higher education were successful and that their socialization was often better than that of their schooled peers.

Hunt, Earl (2011). The Mathematics of Behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 249. ISBN 978-0-521-61522-8. Although Spearman's theory of general intelligence has many proponents, it has never been universally accepted. The alternative is, obviously enough, a multiple factor theory, which assumes that observable cognitive performance is determined by individual differences on several latent traits or factors of intelligence. This position was originally put forward by L. L. Thurstone . . . . Like the g theory, the multifactor theory has had many proponents over the years. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Kalbfleisch, M. Layne (21 August 2012). "Chapter 35: Twice-Exceptional Students". In Callahan, Carolyn M.; Hertberg-Davis, Holly L. (eds.). Fundamentals of Gifted Education: Considering Multiple Perspectives. Routledge. p. 359–360. ISBN 978-1-136-94643-1. Unfortunately, little is known about the 'prevalence' of twice exceptionality—how many twice-exceptional people there are within the general population; or 'incidence'—how many people are actually diagnosed or identified as twice exceptional, although the new National Institute for Twice-Exceptionality (NITE) at the Belin-Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development, University of Iowa reports estimates of up to 360,000 twice-exceptional students in schools across the United States (see 'What is Twice Exceptionality?' in NITE section at http://www.education.uiowa.edu/html/belinblank/Clinic/NITE.aspx). Estimates are difficult because each disability population is tracked and monitored differently, and learning disability, like the word 'gifted,' can have multiple definitions. A recent review highlights efforts to examine empirically twice exceptionality (Foley Nicpon, Allman, Sieck, & Stinson, 2011). {{cite book}}: External link in |quote= (help)

Kalbfleisch, M. Layne (21 August 2012). "Chapter 35: Twice-Exceptional Students". In Callahan, Carolyn M.; Hertberg-Davis, Holly L. (eds.). Fundamentals of Gifted Education: Considering Multiple Perspectives. Routledge. p. 360. ISBN 978-1-136-94643-1. Because defining twice exceptionality has defied psychometric and empirical characterization up to this point, and because it can include co-morbidity with a number of disorders (specific learning disability, dyslexia, attention deficit disorders, and autism, to name the few highlighted in this chapter), the gifted education field at large has only been able to respond to the consequences of it, when the goal should be proactive identification and support to enable the success that should come from educational experience and learning, not in spite of it. This is critical because the social and emotional aspects of twice exceptionality are fundamentally important to the twice-exceptional individual's ability to achieve a well-adjusted life (Assouline, Nicpon, & Huber, 2006; Foley Nicpon, Doobay, & Assouline, 2010; Gardynik & McDonald, 2005; King, 2005; New, 2003).

Keller, Evelyn Fox (21 May 2010). The Mirage of a Space between Nature and Nurture. Duke University Press. p. 10. ISBN 978-0-8223-4731-6. The persistence of the nature-nurture debate has been a source of considerable puzzlement to many scholars. Many years ago, the developmental psychologist Daniel S. Lehrman had this to say: When opposing groups of intelligent, highly educated, competent scientists continue over many years to disagree, and even to wrangle bitterly, about an issue which they regard as important, it must sooner or later become obvious that the disagreement is not a factual one, and that it cannot be resolved by calling to the attention of the members of one group...the existence of new data which will make them see the light...If this is, as I believe, the case, we ought to consider the roles played in this disagreement by semantic difficulties arising from concealed differences in the way different people use the same words, or in the way the same people use the same words at different times; [and] by differences in the concepts used by different workers...(Lehrman 1970, 18-19) {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Keller, Evelyn Fox (21 May 2010). The Mirage of a Space between Nature and Nurture. Duke University Press. pp. 11–12. ISBN 978-0-8223-4731-6. Contemporary biology of development has clearly exposed the assumption in Galton's formulation as meaningless, as not making sense. Indeed, the problem was already evident early in the twentieth century, and in an effort to salvage the questions that had interested Galton, a reformulation of his project was soon provided. The English statistician R. A. Fisher was one of the first who taught us the necessity of making two fundamental distinctions if we wished to address Galton's concerns: we must distinguish first between traits and trait differences, and second between individual and population. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Keller, Evelyn Fox (21 May 2010). The Mirage of a Space between Nature and Nurture. Duke University Press. p. 12. ISBN 978-0-8223-4731-6. In the technical literature of population genetics, heritability was defined as referring to a statistical measure that has meaning only in relation to populations. Unfortunately, however, the word was already in use, but with another, simpler meaning—namely, transmissibility from parents to offspring. The double meaning of heritability has been frequently noted, but, in my view, its role in the continuing confounding of the two meanings, and accordingly of individual and population dynamics—both in the technical and popular literature—has not been adequately pursued. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Keller, Evelyn Fox (21 May 2010). The Mirage of a Space between Nature and Nurture. Duke University Press. p. 16–17. ISBN 978-0-8223-4731-6. It used to be claimed that the nature-nurture debate began with Francis Galton, and it certainly was Galton who, with English Men of Science: Their Nature and Nurture (1874), put the conjunction into wide circulation. Galton refers to his phrase 'nature and nurture' as 'a convenient jingle of words' (1974, 12), and indeed it is. But as I've already said, it is also more than that: it is a catchphrase that conjoins two domains on the tacit assumption that they are initially disjoint; it sneaks into our language—as if it had always been there, and as if it were self-evident—the presupposition of disjunction on which conjunction rests. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Keller, Evelyn Fox (21 May 2010). The Mirage of a Space between Nature and Nurture. Duke University Press. p. 30. ISBN 978-0-8223-4731-6. Today, it is widely accepted by contemporary biologists and lay readers alike—as Daniel Dennett puts it, 'everyone knows'—that genes and environment must interact to produce any biological trait, that nature (understood as heredity) and nurture (understood as environment) are not alternatives. And yet. And yet, the image of separable ingredients continues to exert a surprisingly strong hold on our imagination, even long after we have learned better. Although 'everyone knows' it not to be true, many authors continue to argue as if nature and nurture were (or, at the very least, could be regarded as) separable and clearly distinguishable causes of development. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Keller, Evelyn Fox (21 May 2010). The Mirage of a Space between Nature and Nurture. Duke University Press. p. 48. ISBN 978-0-8223-4731-6. PKU is a disorder (now recognized as genetic) associated with a range of disabling symptoms, including mental retardation, and it is caused by the inability of the body to properly metabolize the essential amino acid phenylalanine. A major breakthrough in the treatment of this disease came with the recognition that its symptoms can be significantly alleviated if the affected individual adheres to a carefully monitored low-phenylalanine diet for his or her entire life. However, the development of a strategy to treat PKU had nothing to do with either the identification or the mapping of the gene(s) or genetic sequence(s) involved. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Keller, Evelyn Fox (21 May 2010). The Mirage of a Space between Nature and Nurture. Duke University Press. p. 53. ISBN 978-0-8223-4731-6. I want to return to my canonical example of PKU and consider two individuals with a measurable difference in IQ, a clear genetic difference (one has a mutation in the relevant sequence, and the other does not), and a clear difference in environment (one is raised on a normal diet, the other on a controlled, low-phenylalanine diet). Now let us ask, how much of the observed difference in IQ is due to the genetic difference, and how much to the difference in diet? This question is well posed, but alas, it cannot be answered. The reason is straightforward: individuals with the mutation react to the difference in diet very differently from those who do not. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Keller, Evelyn Fox (21 May 2010). The Mirage of a Space between Nature and Nurture. Duke University Press. p. 54. ISBN 978-0-8223-4731-6. Questions about differences between groups require a different kind of analysis than do questions about differences between individuals. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Keller, Evelyn Fox (21 May 2010). The Mirage of a Space between Nature and Nurture. Duke University Press. pp. 55–56. ISBN 978-0-8223-4731-6. Although a number of others have noted the double meaning of the term 'heritability,' in my view, the implications of that ambiguity have not been adequately pursued. I will argue, first, that slippage between the two meanings of the term is chronic in both the technical and the popular literature, and second, that this slippage is a primary source of our continuing difficulty in keeping claims about populations apart from claims about inheritance per se. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Keller, Evelyn Fox (21 May 2010). The Mirage of a Space between Nature and Nurture. Duke University Press. p. 59. ISBN 978-0-8223-4731-6. Although it is enormously important, many people find the distinction between the ordinary and technical meanings of heritability almost impossible to keep in sight, particularly when discussing human behavioral traits. Authors and readers alike routinely slide from one meaning to the other, wreaking havoc on the ways in which legitimate scientific measurements are interpreted. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Klug, William S.; Cummings, Michael R.; Spencer, Charlotte A.; Palladino, Michael A. (2012). Concepts of Genetics (Tenth ed.). Pearson. p. 659. ISBN 978-0-321-75435-6. Heritability values estimate the genetic contribution to phenotypic variability under specific environmental conditions. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Klug, William S.; Cummings, Michael R.; Spencer, Charlotte A.; Palladino, Michael A. (2012). Concepts of Genetics (Tenth ed.). Pearson. p. 660. ISBN 978-0-321-75435-6. To further complicate the link between the genotype and phenotype, the genotype generated at fertilization establishes a quantitative range within which a particular individual can fall. However, the final phenotype is often also influenced by environmental factors to which that individual is exposed. Human height, for example, is genetically influenced, but is also affected by environmental factors such as nutrition. Quantitative (polygenic) traits whose phenotypes result from both gene action and environmental influences are often termed multifactorial, or complex traits. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Klug, William S.; Cummings, Michael R.; Spencer, Charlotte A.; Palladino, Michael A. (2012). Concepts of Genetics (Tenth ed.). Pearson. p. 660–661. ISBN 978-0-321-75435-6. The question of whether continuous phenotypic variation could be explained in Mendelian terms caused considerable controversy in the early 1900s. Some scientists argued that, although Mendel's unit factors, or genes, explained patterns of discontinuous segregation with discrete phenotypic classes, they could not also account for the range of phenotypes seen in quantitative patterns of inheritance. However, geneticists William Bateson and G. Udny Yule, adhering to a Mendelian explanation, proposed the multiple-factor or multiple-gene hypothesis, in which many genes, each individually behaving in a Mendelian fashion, contribute to the phenotype in a cumulative or quantitative way. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Klug, William S.; Cummings, Michael R.; Spencer, Charlotte A.; Palladino, Michael A. (2012). Concepts of Genetics (Tenth ed.). Pearson. p. 661. ISBN 978-0-321-75435-6. The multiple-gene hypothesis was initially based on a key set of experimental results published by Hermann Nilsson-Ehle in 1909. Nilsson-Ehle used grain color in wheat to test the concept that the cumulative effects of alleles at multiple loci produce the range of phenotypes seen in quantitative traits. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Klug, William S.; Cummings, Michael R.; Spencer, Charlotte A.; Palladino, Michael A. (2012). Concepts of Genetics (Tenth ed.). Pearson. p. 662. ISBN 978-0-321-75435-6. The multiple-gene hypothesis consists of the following major points: 1. Phenotypic traits showing continuous variation can be quantified by measuring, weighing, counting, and so on. 2. Two or more gene loci, often scattered throughout the genome, account for the hereditary influence on the phenotype in an additive way. Because many genes may be involved, inheritance of this type is called polygenic. 3. Each gene locus may be occupied by either an additive allele, which contributes a constant amount to the phenotype, or a nonadditive allele, which does not contribute quantitatively to the phenotype. 4. The contribution to the phenotype of each additive allele, though often small, is approximately equal. While we now know this is not always true, we have made this assumption in the above discussion. 5. Together, the additive alleles contributing to a single quantitative character produce substantial phenotypic variation. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Klug, William S.; Cummings, Michael R.; Spencer, Charlotte A.; Palladino, Michael A. (2012). Concepts of Genetics (Tenth ed.). Pearson. p. 666. ISBN 978-0-321-75435-6. The term heritability is used to describe what proportion of total phenotypic variation in a population is due to genetic factors. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Klug, William S.; Cummings, Michael R.; Spencer, Charlotte A.; Palladino, Michael A. (2012). Concepts of Genetics (Tenth ed.). Pearson. p. 666. ISBN 978-0-321-75435-6. The concept of heritability is frequently misunderstood and misused. It should be emphasized that heritability indicates neither how much of a trait is genetically determined nor the extent to which an individual's phenotype is due to genotype. In recent years, such misinterpretations of heritability for human quantitative traits have led to controversy, notably in relation to measurements such as intelligence quotients, or IQs. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Klug, William S.; Cummings, Michael R.; Spencer, Charlotte A.; Palladino, Michael A. (2012). Concepts of Genetics (Tenth ed.). Pearson. p. 667. ISBN 978-0-321-75435-6. When obtaining heritability estimates for a multifactorial trait, researchers often assume that the genotype-by-environment interaction variance is small enough that it can be ignored or combined with the environmental variance. However, it is worth remembering that this kind of approximation is another reason heritability values are estimates for a given population in a particular context, not a fixed attribute for a trait. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Klug, William S.; Cummings, Michael R.; Spencer, Charlotte A.; Palladino, Michael A. (2012). Concepts of Genetics (Tenth ed.). Pearson. p. 667. ISBN 978-0-321-75435-6. Broad-sense heritability (represented by the term H²) measures the contibution of the genotypic variance to the total phenotypic variance. It is estimated as a proportion:

H² = ${\frac {V_G}{V_P}}$

Heritability values for a trait in a population range from 0.0 to 1.0. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Klug, William S.; Cummings, Michael R.; Spencer, Charlotte A.; Palladino, Michael A. (2012). Concepts of Genetics (Tenth ed.). Pearson. p. 667–668. ISBN 978-0-321-75435-6. Narrow-sense heritability (h²) is the proportion of phenotypic variance due to additive genotypic variance alone. Genotypic variance can be divided into subcomponents representing the different modes of action of alleles at quantitative trait loci. As not all the genes involved in a quantitative trait affect the phenotype in the same way, this partitioning distinguishes among three different kinds of gene action contributing to genotypic variance. Additive variance, V_A, is the genotypic variance due to the additive action of alleles at quantitative trait loci. Dominance variance, V_D, is the deviation from the additive components that results when phenotypic expression in heterozygotes is not precisely intermediate between the two homozygotes. Interactive variance, V_I, is the deviation from the additive components that occurs when two or more loci behave epistatically. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Klug, William S.; Cummings, Michael R.; Spencer, Charlotte A.; Palladino, Michael A. (2012). Concepts of Genetics (Tenth ed.). Pearson. p. 668. ISBN 978-0-321-75435-6. The partitioning of the total genotypic variance VG is summarized in the equation

V_G = V_A + V_D + V_I

and a narrow-sense heritability estimate based only on that portion of the genotypic variance due to additive gene action becomes

h² = ${\frac {V_A}{V_P}}$

Omitting V_I and separating V_P into genotypic and evnironmental variance components, we obtain

h² = ${\frac {V_A}{V_E+V_A+V_D}}$

{{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Klug, William S.; Cummings, Michael R.; Spencer, Charlotte A.; Palladino, Michael A. (2012). Concepts of Genetics (Tenth ed.). Pearson. p. 669. ISBN 978-0-321-75435-6. The longest running artificial selection experiment known is still being conducted at the State Agricultural Laboratory in Illinois. Since 1896, corn has been selected for both high and low oil content. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Klug, William S.; Cummings, Michael R.; Spencer, Charlotte A.; Palladino, Michael A. (2012). Concepts of Genetics (Tenth ed.). Pearson. p. 669. ISBN 978-0-321-75435-6. h² values vary, but heritability tends to be low for quantitative traits that are essential to an organism's survival. Remember, this does not indicate the absence of a genetic contribution to the observed phenotypes for such traits. Instead, the low h² values show that natural selection has already largely optimized the genetic component of these traits during evolution. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Klug, William S.; Cummings, Michael R.; Spencer, Charlotte A.; Palladino, Michael A. (2012). Concepts of Genetics (Tenth ed.). Pearson. p. 670. ISBN 978-0-321-75435-6. Another possible error source is interactions between the genotype and the environment that produce variability in the phenotype. These interactions can increase the total phenotypic variance for DZ twins compared to MZ twins raised in the same environment, influencing heritability calculations. Overall, heritability estimates for human traits based on twin studies should therefore be considered approximations and examined very carefully before any conclusions are drawn. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Klug, William S.; Cummings, Michael R.; Spencer, Charlotte A.; Palladino, Michael A. (2012). Concepts of Genetics (Tenth ed.). Pearson. p. 671. ISBN 978-0-321-75435-6. Progressive, age-related genomic modifications may be the result of MZ twins being exposed to different environmental factors, or from failure of epigenetic marking following DNA replication. These findings also indicate that concordance studies in DZ twins must take into account genetic as well as epigenetic differences that contribute to discordance in these twin pairs. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Klug, William S.; Cummings, Michael R.; Spencer, Charlotte A.; Palladino, Michael A. (2012). Concepts of Genetics (Tenth ed.). Pearson. p. 680. ISBN 978-0-321-75435-6. Behavior is a complex response to stimuli that is mediated both by genes and by the environment. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Klug, William S.; Cummings, Michael R.; Spencer, Charlotte A.; Palladino, Michael A. (2012). Concepts of Genetics (Tenth ed.). Pearson. p. 680. ISBN 978-0-321-75435-6. The behavior-first and gene-first approaches have been successfully used to dissect behavioral responses in Drosophila, making it a useful model organism for the study of nervous system function and the mechanisms that underlie human behavioral disorders. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Klug, William S.; Cummings, Michael R.; Spencer, Charlotte A.; Palladino, Michael A. (2012). Concepts of Genetics (Tenth ed.). Pearson. p. 681. ISBN 978-0-321-75435-6. By the early 1900s, clear-cut cases of genetic influence on behavior had been identified, but at the time, behavior was primarily of interest to psychologists, who were concerned with learned or conditioned behavior. Such behaviors were thought to reflect the influence of the environment to the exclusion of the genotype. The difference between these two approaches to studying behavior was the starting point for what has been called the nature versus nurture debate. In this simplistic (and false) dichotomy, behavior is controlled entirely either by genes or by the environment. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Klug, William S.; Cummings, Michael R.; Spencer, Charlotte A.; Palladino, Michael A. (2012). Concepts of Genetics (Tenth ed.). Pearson. p. 681. ISBN 978-0-321-75435-6. In humans, twin studies and adoption studies have provided evidence for the role of heredity in behavioral responses. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Klug, William S.; Cummings, Michael R.; Spencer, Charlotte A.; Palladino, Michael A. (2012). Concepts of Genetics (Tenth ed.). Pearson. p. 681. ISBN 978-0-321-75435-6. Two different approaches have been used to study the genetic control of behavior, to define the interactions between genotype and environmental factors, and to dissect the pathways leading from genes to a behavioral phenotype. One of these approaches is a top=down, or behavior-first, method in which a specific behavior is identified in an organism, and then, genetic crosses are used to produce strains that bred true for either a high level or a low level of this behavioral response. Once these strains are established, further crosses identify and analyze the genetic components of the behavior. The second approach is a bottom-up, or gene-first, approach in which mutagenesis followed by screening is used to identify single-gene mutations associated with variant or abnormal behaviors. Analysis of the molecular mechanism of gene action in these mutant strains often provided a direct explanation of the behavior. Each approach has its advantages and shortcomings, but in spite of their differences, both share the same goals: to establish the inherited nature of a specific behavior, to identify and enumerate the genes or gene systems involved in the behavior being studied, to map these genes or gene systems to specific chromosomes, and to elucidate the molecular mechanisms by which these genes influence a behavioral response. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Klug, William S.; Cummings, Michael R.; Spencer, Charlotte A.; Palladino, Michael A. (2012). Concepts of Genetics (Tenth ed.). Pearson. p. 681. ISBN 978-0-321-75435-6. The prevailing view today is that most behaviors are complex traits involving a number of genes, as well as interactions between and among these genes and environmental influences. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Klug, William S.; Cummings, Michael R.; Spencer, Charlotte A.; Palladino, Michael A. (2012). Concepts of Genetics (Tenth ed.). Pearson. p. 688. ISBN 978-0-321-75435-6. The genetic control of behavior has proven more difficult to characterize in humans than in other organisms, partly because the types of responses considered to be the most interesting forms of human behavior, including aspects of intelligence, language, personality, and emotion, are difficult to study. Two problems arise in studying such behaviors. First, these traits are difficult to define objectively and to measure quantitatively. Second, they are affected by environmental factors and there is a wide range of individual variation in the responses to these factors. In each case, the environment is extremely important in shaping, limiting, or facilitating the final phenotype. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Klug, William S.; Cummings, Michael R.; Spencer, Charlotte A.; Palladino, Michael A. (2012). Concepts of Genetics (Tenth ed.). Pearson. p. 688. ISBN 978-0-321-75435-6. Historically, the study of human behavior genetics has been hampered for other reasons as well. Many early studies of human behavior were conducted by psychologists with limited training in genetics. Second, traits involving intelligence, personality, and emotion have great social and political significance. Consequently, research findings concerning these traits are likely to be distorted by sensationalism when reported to the public. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Klug, William S.; Cummings, Michael R.; Spencer, Charlotte A.; Palladino, Michael A. (2012). Concepts of Genetics (Tenth ed.). Pearson. p. 688. ISBN 978-0-321-75435-6. In lamenting the gulf between psychology and genetics in the study of human behavior, C. C. Darlington wrote in 1963, 'Human behavior has thus become a happy hunting ground for literary amateurs. And the reason is that psychology and genetics, whose business it is to explain behavior, have failed to face the task together.' Since 1963, some progress has been made in bridging this gap, but the genetics of human behavior remains somewhat controversial. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Klug, William S.; Cummings, Michael R.; Spencer, Charlotte A.; Palladino, Michael A. (2012). Concepts of Genetics (Tenth ed.). Pearson. p. 691. ISBN 978-0-321-75435-6. The evidence from GWAS on schizophrenia indicates that no single gene or allele makes a significant contribution to this disorder. Instead, the results point to the involvement of hundreds of genes that each contributes only a small amount to schizophrenia. GWAS are based on the assumption that common gene variants (present in more than 5 percent of the population ) contribute to disease risk (the common disease/common variant hypothesis, abbreviated as CDCV). In this case, common variants identified by GWAS contribute only about 4 to 30 percent of the risk for schizophrenia. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Lohman, David F. (21 August 2012). "Chapter 12: Identifying Gifted Students: Nontraditional Uses of Traditional Measures". In Callahan, Carolyn M.; Hertberg-Davis, Holly L. (eds.). Fundamentals of Gifted Education: Considering Multiple Perspectives. Routledge. p. 119. ISBN 978-1-136-94643-1. However, if for any reason the individual's experiences differ markedly from those of other students who are the same age or in the same grade, then these normative comparisons will either underestimate or over-estimate the individual's ability to learn. Clearly, the intellectual abilities of students who live in poverty, who have irregular or poor schooling, who have less experience with the language of instruction (or testing) than the students they are being compared to are often underestimated when their behavior is compared with that of other children who are the same age or in the same grade.

Lohman, David F. (21 August 2012). "Chapter 12: Identifying Gifted Students: Nontraditional Uses of Traditional Measures". In Callahan, Carolyn M.; Hertberg-Davis, Holly L. (eds.). Fundamentals of Gifted Education: Considering Multiple Perspectives. Routledge. pp. 119–120. ISBN 978-1-136-94643-1. Since the earliest days of mental testing, psychologists have stuggled with the problem of accounting for differences in opportunity to learn, expecially those differences moderated by exposure to the language of testing. Two fundamentally different approaches have been taken: 1. adjustment or redevelopment of norms so that students' scores can be compared with the scores of other individuals who have had similar opportunities to learn the language in which the test is presented or the knowledge it presumes; or 2. attempts to reduce or eliminate the impact of language or culutre on the test itself. [Para] The second approach has long been the preferred option. The use of culture-and language-reduced or so-called 'nonverbal' tests stretches from the form boards of Itard through Army Beta to the performance battery of the Wechsler scales, the Progrssive Matrices test (Raven, 1938), the Nonverbal Battery of the Cognitive Abilities Test (Thorndike & Hagen, 1963), and the Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test (Bracken & McCallum, 1998). The most important disadvantage of this approach is that the abilities measured by nonverbal tests—especially those that use only figural reasoning items—under-represent the construct of intelligence. The most salient advantage of this approach is that the scores of all students can be interpreted using the same set of norms. However, using common norms assumes that the effects of language and culture have indeed been eliminated.

McIntosh, David E.; Dixon, Felicia A.; Pierson, Eric E. (2012). "Chapter 25: Use of Intelligence Tests in the Identification of Giftedness". In Flanagan, Dawn P.; Harrison, Patti L. (eds.). Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (Third ed.). New York (NY): Guilford Press. pp. 623–42, 625. ISBN 978-1-60918-995-2. While current trends in test publishing and research have moved toward an increased emphasis on instruments built around theories of intelligence, it is important to keep in mind that earlier measures used with the assessment of giftedness had as their primary goal the classification of individuals along a unitary dimension of intelligence. As a result of changes in how estimates of IQ are obtained and in the nature of the tests, a child who was classified as gifted in the 1930s-1970s may look very different intellectually from what a psychologist looking at a gifted child in the current decade would see. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

McIntosh, David E.; Dixon, Felicia A.; Pierson, Eric E. (2012). "Chapter 25: Use of Intelligence Tests in the Identification of Giftedness". In Flanagan, Dawn P.; Harrison, Patti L. (eds.). Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (Third ed.). New York (NY): Guilford Press. pp. 623–42, 627–628. ISBN 978-1-60918-995-2. On the contrary, Simonton (2008) used Winner's (1996) definition of giftedness—'A gifted child or adolescent is someone who masters a particular domain at a faster rate than the average youth' (p. 253)—in his historiometric study of 291 eminent African Americans. Multiple-regression analyses indicated that adulthood eminence and creative achievement were positively correlated with early giftedness. Simonton offered two main implications, one theoretical and one practical, for this study. Theoretically, his inquiry established an impressive developmental continuity across the lifespan: Precocious development in childhood and adolescence predicts the magnitude of eminence and achievement in adulthood. Practically, his study indicated that giftedness must not be evaluated according to a 'one-size-fits-all' procedure, but rather according to the occurrence of precocious behaviors that are specific to a given culture and achievement domain. The variety of gifts manifested in these precocious individuals would not have been identified by a score on a standard intelligence test. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

McIntosh, David E.; Dixon, Felicia A.; Pierson, Eric E. (2012). "Chapter 25: Use of Intelligence Tests in the Identification of Giftedness". In Flanagan, Dawn P.; Harrison, Patti L. (eds.). Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (Third ed.). New York (NY): Guilford Press. pp. 623–42, 631. ISBN 978-1-60918-995-2. The WISC-R and WISC-III were not closely tied to any theory of intelligence (O'Donnell, 2009). {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

McIntosh, David E.; Dixon, Felicia A.; Pierson, Eric E. (2012). "Chapter 25: Use of Intelligence Tests in the Identification of Giftedness". In Flanagan, Dawn P.; Harrison, Patti L. (eds.). Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (Third ed.). New York (NY): Guilford Press. pp. 623–42, 631. ISBN 978-1-60918-995-2. Borland (1989) has cautioned that defining the target population is the first and most important step in programming for gifted students. In other words, if a school selects a narrow definition or one based exclusively on cognitive ability, then the school's program should reflect this definition. On the other hand, if the school chooses to adopt the U.S. Department o f Education (1993) definition, then a very comprehensive array of services should be available. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

McIntosh, David E.; Dixon, Felicia A.; Pierson, Eric E. (2012). "Chapter 25: Use of Intelligence Tests in the Identification of Giftedness". In Flanagan, Dawn P.; Harrison, Patti L. (eds.). Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (Third ed.). New York (NY): Guilford Press. pp. 623–42, 632. ISBN 978-1-60918-995-2. High-ability students often score very highly on group tests, and a ceiling effect may occur, in which their scores cluster near the very top of possible scores on the test. It is sometimes incorrectly assumed that all of these children are equally talented and need a similar program. However, this is not always the case. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

McIntosh, David E.; Dixon, Felicia A.; Pierson, Eric E. (2012). "Chapter 25: Use of Intelligence Tests in the Identification of Giftedness". In Flanagan, Dawn P.; Harrison, Patti L. (eds.). Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (Third ed.). New York (NY): Guilford Press. pp. 623–42, 632. ISBN 978-1-60918-995-2. Another strategy that has received some popularity over the years is the use of out-of-age tests with students believed to be gifted. The higher ceilings of these instruments allow for students to be challenged and fit with a historical definition of advanced mental age. One problem with this approach is that because the tests were given to children not in the normative sample, age-based norms cannot be used, and comparisons cannot be made. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

McIntosh, David E.; Dixon, Felicia A.; Pierson, Eric E. (2012). "Chapter 25: Use of Intelligence Tests in the Identification of Giftedness". In Flanagan, Dawn P.; Harrison, Patti L. (eds.). Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (Third ed.). New York (NY): Guilford Press. pp. 623–42, 632. ISBN 978-1-60918-995-2. Although the use of the extended normative tables for the WISC-IV published by Zhu et al. (2008) may be desired by some who work regularly with highly gifted samples, there remain several questions that are not explained in the technical report regarding the use of these norms. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

McIntosh, David E.; Dixon, Felicia A.; Pierson, Eric E. (2012). "Chapter 25: Use of Intelligence Tests in the Identification of Giftedness". In Flanagan, Dawn P.; Harrison, Patti L. (eds.). Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (Third ed.). New York (NY): Guilford Press. pp. 623–42, 632. ISBN 978-1-60918-995-2. Additional concerns about the use of the Zhu et al. (2008) extended normative tables arise because of the limited description of how participants were recruited or selected for participation in the study. The demographic data reported for the sample in the technical report are limited to age and gender. It does not report how the individuals were identified as gifted. As a result, questions about the appropriateness of the use of these tables with minority students may arise. As observed by Zhu and colleagues, this normative data may be helpful, but further validity studies are needed. Finally, the clinical choice to use the WISC-IV and its extended normative tables does not remove the question of whether or not it adequately assesses all of the suspected areas of gifted abilities (or intelligence) in children. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

McIntosh, David E.; Dixon, Felicia A.; Pierson, Eric E. (2012). "Chapter 25: Use of Intelligence Tests in the Identification of Giftedness". In Flanagan, Dawn P.; Harrison, Patti L. (eds.). Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (Third ed.). New York (NY): Guilford Press. pp. 623–42, 636. ISBN 978-1-60918-995-2. Although many would consider screening to be the crucial point in the identification process, predictive validity must be established between the screening procedure and the intellectual measure(s) used to ensure the accuracy and utility of the identification process. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

McIntosh, David E.; Dixon, Felicia A.; Pierson, Eric E. (2012). "Chapter 25: Use of Intelligence Tests in the Identification of Giftedness". In Flanagan, Dawn P.; Harrison, Patti L. (eds.). Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (Third ed.). New York (NY): Guilford Press. pp. 623–42, 636. ISBN 978-1-60918-995-2. Considering the wide variety of screening methods used, relationships between screening procedures and intellectual measures can range from very low to very high. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

McIntosh, David E.; Dixon, Felicia A.; Pierson, Eric E. (2012). "Chapter 25: Use of Intelligence Tests in the Identification of Giftedness". In Flanagan, Dawn P.; Harrison, Patti L. (eds.). Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (Third ed.). New York (NY): Guilford Press. pp. 623–42, 636. ISBN 978-1-60918-995-2. The use of a single cognitive test composite score as the primary criterion for determining giftedness is highly common within schools. In the past, the WISC-R (Wechsler, 1974) and the fourth edition of the Stanford-Binet (SB-IV; Thorndike, Hagen, & Sattler, 1986) were the most commonly used cognitive measures in the schools (Coleman & Cross, 2005). {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

McIntosh, David E.; Dixon, Felicia A.; Pierson, Eric E. (2012). "Chapter 25: Use of Intelligence Tests in the Identification of Giftedness". In Flanagan, Dawn P.; Harrison, Patti L. (eds.). Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (Third ed.). New York (NY): Guilford Press. pp. 623–42, 636. ISBN 978-1-60918-995-2. It should be noted that the SB5 has a standard deviation of 15. It is also important to understand that the historic method of calculating IQ used in early work on giftedness was built around a mental age formula; as a result, gifted individuals might obtain an IQ of 200, but today that is not possible. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Michell, Joel (1999). Measurement in Psychology: Critical History of a Methodological Concept. Ideas in Context No. 53. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 142. ISBN 978-0-521-62120-5. Johnson [1936] distinguished nominal, ordinal and cardinal applications of numbers; nominal apply to classifications, ordinal to mere orderings, and cardinal only to attributes with demonstrable additive structure. Only the latter is measurement and no psychological attributes fit this category, in Johnson's view. He uncritically included intelligence among his list of ordinal attributes, concluding that observed scores on intelligence tests correspond to an ordinal scale of intelligence because equal differences between such scores have not een shown to correspond to equal differences in intelligence (i.e., he reasoned that it they are not quantitative, then they must be ordinal). This is not a valid conclusion, for intelligence test scores or any other for that matter. If the proposition that equal differences between observed scores correspond to equal differences in intelligence is doubtful, then the proposition that the order of observed scores corresponds to the order of intelligence can likewise be doubted. Both are empirical hypotheses in need of testing. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Miller, Erin Morris (21 August 2012). "Chapter 6: Being Gifted". In Callahan, Carolyn M.; Hertberg-Davis, Holly L. (eds.). Fundamentals of Gifted Education: Considering Multiple Perspectives. Routledge. p. 51. ISBN 978-1-136-94643-1. The tests that have been in development the longest, and with the largest research base supporting their reliability and accuracy in predicting school outcomes, are those that measure general intelligence (g) and specific cognitive factors (s) and those that measure achievement in a specific domain of study. Examples include the Wechsler series of intelligence and achievement scales (i.e., Wechsler, 2000, 2009), the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales (Roid, 2006), the Woodcock-Johnson series (i.e. Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001a, 2001b), the Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT) (Lohman & Hagen, 2001), and the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS) (Hoover, Dunbar, & Frisbie, 2005).

Miller, Erin Morris (21 August 2012). "Chapter 6: Being Gifted". In Callahan, Carolyn M.; Hertberg-Davis, Holly L. (eds.). Fundamentals of Gifted Education: Considering Multiple Perspectives. Routledge. p. 53. ISBN 978-1-136-94643-1. Using multiple criteria in the identification of students who fit trait definitions of intellectual giftedness requires the use of several different types of assessment to identify potential strengths. First, identification would necessarily involve standardized testing. This psychometric approach is effective and efficient and provides reliable and educationally useful information (Robinson, 2005). It allows an evaluation of both general intelligence and specific aptitudes, both of which should be served in school. However, additional assessments should also be used, with each instrument having the potential to contribute different data to an understanding of the core set of cognitive abilities that make up giftedness. Any one critierion can get a child identified, but no one criterion can exclude a child from identification. This stucture of identification procedures is highly supported in the field (Ford, 1998; Maker, 1996; Passow & Frasier, 1996; renzulli, 1999). The philosophy is one of inclusion, not exclusion, and as such, it emphasizes both expression and potential.

Moon, Tonya R. (21 August 2012). "Chapter 15: Not Just a Test: Utilizing Non-test Assessments in Identifying Gifted and Talented Students". In Callahan, Carolyn M.; Hertberg-Davis, Holly L. (eds.). Fundamentals of Gifted Education: Considering Multiple Perspectives. Routledge. p. 150. ISBN 978-1-136-94643-1. Rating scales are among the most widely used instruments for screening and identifying students for gifted programs (Pfeiffer & Petscher, 2008). Popular rating scales for identifying gifted students are the Scales for Rating the Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Students (SRBCSS, Renzulli et al., 1997), the Gifted and Talented Evaluation Scales (GATES; Gilliam, Carpenter, & Christensen, 1996), the Purdue Academic Rating Scales (PARS; Feldhusen, Hoover, & Sayler, 1989), and the Gifted Rating Scales (GRS; Pfeiffer & Jarosewich, 2003). Many school divisions use locally constructed teacher and parent rating scales. Recent research has raised concerns about the use of rating scales for identifying students, in particular minority students, for gifted services. Neumeister, Adams, Pierce, Cassady, and Dixon (2007) found that even experienced teachers did not fully perceive or recognize the culturally situated giftedness of minority students. In the study by Neumeister et al. (2007), teachers appeared to rely on mainstream cultural values to nominate students as gifted.

Moon, Tonya R. (21 August 2012). "Chapter 15: Not Just a Test: Utilizing Non-test Assessments in Identifying Gifted and Talented Students". In Callahan, Carolyn M.; Hertberg-Davis, Holly L. (eds.). Fundamentals of Gifted Education: Considering Multiple Perspectives. Routledge. p. 150. ISBN 978-1-136-94643-1. According to the position statement of the National Association for Gifted Children (National Association for Gifted Children [NAGC], n d a), rating scales (and observations and interviews) should only play a supplemental role in the gifted identification process because of the potential bias and prejudices inherent in all individuals.

Murphy, Kevin R.; Davidshofer, Charles O. (2005). Psychological testing: principles and applications. Pearson/Prentice Hall. p. 3. ISBN 978-0-13-189172-2. Retrieved 14 September 2013. A psychological test is a measurement instrument that has three defining characteristics: 1. A psychological test is a sample of behavior. 2. The sample is obtained under standardized conditions. 3. There are established rules for scoring or for obtaining quantitative (numeric) information from the behavior sample. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Murphy, Kevin R.; Davidshofer, Charles O. (2005). Psychological testing: principles and applications. Pearson/Prentice Hall. p. 5. ISBN 978-0-13-189172-2. Retrieved 14 September 2013. Individually administered tests are difficult to standardize because the examiner is an integral part of the test. The same test given to the same subject by two different examiners is certain to elicit a somewhat different set of behaviors. nevertheless, through specialized training, a good deal of standardization in the essential features of testing can be achieved. Strict adherence to standard procedures for administering various psychological tests helps to minimize the effects of extraneous variables, such as the physical conditions of testing, the characteristics of the examiner, or the subject's confusion regarding the demands of the test. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Murphy, Kevin R.; Davidshofer, Charles O. (2005). Psychological testing: principles and applications. Pearson/Prentice Hall. p. 13. ISBN 978-0-13-189172-2. Retrieved 14 September 2013. The yearbook entry for each test indicates the publisher, available forms, and price of the test, together with a comprehensive bibliography of published research involving that test. Of most importance, most tests are critically reviewed by a number of experts. These reviews point out the technical strengths and weaknesses of each test, thereby representing an invaluable evaluation of each test. In the event that a test is judged technically deficient, reviewers are encouraged to indicate whether another commercially available test does a better job of measuring the specific attributes targeted by the test under review. A similar multivolume reference work, entitled Test Critiques, contains reviews of a large number of tests. The first volume of this series was released in 1984 (Keyser & Sweetland, 1984), and several additional volumes have been released since then. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Murphy, Kevin R.; Davidshofer, Charles O. (2005). Psychological testing: principles and applications. Pearson/Prentice Hall. p. 15. ISBN 978-0-13-189172-2. Retrieved 14 September 2013. Another useful document is the "Code of Fair Testing Practices in Education," which can be accessed at the Web site www.ericae.net/code.txt. [para] The preamble of the principles states that "psychologists respect and protect human and civil rights, and do not knowingly participate in or condone discriminatory practices." The body of this document outlines the psychologist's responsibility with regard to issues such as competence, confidentiality, and the welfare of consumers of psychological services. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Murphy, Kevin R.; Davidshofer, Charles O. (2005). Psychological testing: principles and applications. Pearson/Prentice Hall. p. 32. ISBN 978-0-13-189172-2. Retrieved 14 September 2013. Although Binet preferred the somewhat neutral term mental level, the term mental age is more common. The method of expressing intelligence test scores in terms of mental age represented a tremendous breakthrough. Whereas previous attempts at measuring intelligence had yielded scores whose interpretations were not immediately obvious (e.g., on the 1905 scale, was a score of 22/30 good, average, or poor?), the score yielded by the 1908 Binet-Simon was concrete and understandable. A score of 7 years meant that the examinee's performance resembled that of a typical 7-year-old. The use of an age scale contributed significantly to the popularity of intelligence tests (Goodenough, 1949; Matarazzo, 1972). {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Murphy, Kevin R.; Davidshofer, Charles O. (2005). Psychological testing: principles and applications. Pearson/Prentice Hall. p. 33. ISBN 978-0-13-189172-2. Retrieved 14 September 2013. The most serious problem occurs when one tries to measure the intelligence of adults. [para] Mental age does not increase steadily throughout a person's entire life; an average 85-year-old is not likely to solve many problems that are beyond the grasp of an ordinary 84-year-old. Although there is evidence that many adults continue to add to their score of factual knowledge throughout their entire lives, it seems clear that the rate of development in basic cognitive abilities decreases sharply with age (Eysenck, 1979) In effect, an IQ score based on mental age penalizes the older examinee. Whereas chronological age is progressing at a steady rate, mental age soon levels off. As a consequence, the IQ = MA/CA formulation invariably suggests that as people get older, they steadily become less intelligent. In other words, if you lived long enough, your mental age IQ would invariably approach zero! {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Murphy, Kevin R.; Davidshofer, Charles O. (2005). Psychological testing: principles and applications. Pearson/Prentice Hall. p. 35. ISBN 978-0-13-189172-2. Retrieved 14 September 2013. The purpose of this section is to provide a set of guidelines for evaluating tests that purport to measure intelligence. Some tests embody all the essential characteristics expected in a good intelligence test, whereas others seem to lack them entirely. This is not to say that every test that follows the strategy described here is a good test and that every test that fails to follow this strategy is a bad one. Nevertheless, we think that it is possible to describe the general characteristics of a good measure of intelligence and to use this information in evaluating tests. [para] The strategy we describe is geared toward measuring general intelligence, although the strategy also might apply when measuring broad abilities (e.g., Vernon's major group factors). Measures of specific intellectual abilities follow the same basic rules of test construction as do measures of nonintellectual abilities or measures of specific personality variables. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Murphy, Kevin R.; Davidshofer, Charles O. (2005). Psychological testing: principles and applications. Pearson/Prentice Hall. p. 56. ISBN 978-0-13-189172-2. Retrieved 14 September 2013. First, these differences may be due to bias in the tests. If this explanation is true, the tests themselves would be the cause of unfair outcomes, such as the loss of jobs, scholarships, and other opportunities (L.S. Gottfredson, 1988). This explanation is intuitively very appealing, especially because test critics can point to items that certainly appear to be biased (e.g., a test item that asks you to define regatta seems as if it may be biased against disadvantaged, inner-city respondents). The possibility that test bias explains differences in test scores has been the focus of literally hundreds of studies (L.S. Gottfredson, 1985; Jensen, 1980; C. R. Reynolds & Brown, 1984). The consensus among researchers is that test bias does not by itself explain differences in test scores. Further discussion of research on test bias is included in Chapter 15. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Murphy, Kevin R.; Davidshofer, Charles O. (2005). Psychological testing: principles and applications. Pearson/Prentice Hall. p. 59. ISBN 978-0-13-189172-2. Retrieved 14 September 2013. One particular concern is that the book does not accurately represent current research and theory regarding intelligence (Jacoby & Glauberman, 1995; Sternberg, 1995), which means that the apparently scientific tone of several parts of this work might in fact be misleading to readers. To help set the scientific record straight, the American Psychological Association appointed a task force to summarize what is known and unknown about intelligence; their report (Neisser et al., 1996) notes the following: 1. Scores on intelligence tests are relatively stable and are related to important criteria (e.g., success in school, on the job). However, although scores on these tests have been steadily rising for decades, there has been little apparent rise in the types of performance that is thought to derive from intelligence. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Murphy, Kevin R.; Davidshofer, Charles O. (2005). Psychological testing: principles and applications. Pearson/Prentice Hall. p. 66. ISBN 978-0-13-189172-2. Retrieved 14 September 2013. In particular, the debate over the use of cognitive ability tests in employment has led to consensus on several points (Murphy et al., 2003; Schmidt, 2002). Murphy et al. (2003) surveyed Industrial and Organizational psychologists, and reported that they agree that cognitive ability tests are, on the whole, valid predictors of job performance and that their use in personnel selection is generally fair. However, they also agree that cognitive abilities or attributes are likely to be relevant for understanding different aspects of performance or performance in different jobs. Finally, they agree that diversity is valued by organizations and the that adverse impact that would occur if cognitive ability tests were the sole basis for personnel selection should be avoided. [para] As Murphy et al.'s (2003) survey suggests, scientific opinion is considerably more nuanced than the debates over cognitive ability in the popular press often suggest. There are few scientists who think that ability tests are always good or always bad. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Murphy, Kevin R.; Davidshofer, Charles O. (2005). Psychological testing: principles and applications. Pearson/Prentice Hall. p. 76. ISBN 978-0-13-189172-2. Retrieved 14 September 2013. The scale just described is referred to as an interval scale. The defining characteristic of an interval scale is that the size of the difference between the numbers assigned to two persons or objects corresponds to the degree to which these persons or objects differ on the attribute being measured. Assume, for example, that we had an interval scale measure of agility and that Sue, Megan, and Kathleen received scores of 2, 4, and 8, respectively. These scores would tell us (1) that Kathleen is more agile than Megan, who is more agile than Sue and (2) that the difference in agility between Megan and Sue. Since individual differences are of considerable concern in psychology, interval scales of measurement can be very useful, and many test developers go to great lengths in attempting to construct interval scales. Unfortunately, such scales are somewhat difficult to construct, and, as a result, many psychological tests yield scores with ordinal properties but without the defining characteristics of an interval scale. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Murphy, Kevin R.; Davidshofer, Charles O. (2005). Psychological testing: principles and applications. Pearson/Prentice Hall. p. 101. ISBN 978-0-13-189172-2. Retrieved 14 September 2013. Although test form equating may seem like a dry, technical topic, one must keep in mind that mistakes in equating can have enormous consequences. Perhaps the most widely discussed equating error was in the scoring of the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) (see Chapter 14). An equating error in the development of one of the ASVAB forms led to a massive influx of individuals who, had their tests been scored appropriately, would not have been judged qualified to join the armed services. When Congress was informed of the error, questions were immediately raised about how these supposedly unqualified people were performing in their jobs. It was only then that the Congress learned that there were no good measures of the job performance of enlisted personnel, that in fact the armed services did not really know how test scores related to job performance! One result was a massive research program on job performance in the military; the results of this project were summarized in a special issue of Personnel Psychology (1990, Vol. 43, No. 2). {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Murphy, Kevin R.; Davidshofer, Charles O. (2005). Psychological testing: principles and applications. Pearson/Prentice Hall. p. 105. ISBN 978-0-13-189172-2. Retrieved 14 September 2013. An age norm relates a level of test performance to the age of people who have taken the test. For example, one edition of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test has a vocabulary subtest that consists of 46 items, arranged from the easiest to the most difficult. The procedure is to read each word and have the examinee give a definition. This procedure continues until the person is unable to correctly define several words in a row. This yields a score for the examinee that represents the number of words defined correctly. Table 5-4 presents some normative data from this particular vocabulary test. For example, for the typical child at age 6, the average number of correct definitions is about 18; for age 12, the number is about 28. Therefore, if an examinee correctly defined about 25 words, his or her performance is similar to that of the typical child who is 10 years of age. [para] The principle involved in developing age norms is fairly simple: They can be developed for any characteristic that changes systematically with age—at least up to some age level. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Ossorio, Pilar N. (13 August 2013). "Chapter 9: Myth and Mystification: The Science of Race and IQ". In Krimsky, Sheldon; Sloan, Kathleen (eds.). Race and the Genetic Revolution: Science, Myth, and Culture. Columbia University Press. p. 176. ISBN 978-0-231-52769-9. Retrieved 31 August 2013. Because human biological variation is complex and continuous, allocating people to categories requires us to "draw lines" where none exist in nature. Differences in features and, as it turns out, in DNA sequences are greatest between groups of people who are geographically distant from each other. The pattern in which some measurable feature varies gradually, and that variation correlates with geographic distance, is called "clinal" variation. Many human traits and many human genetic differences exhibit a clinal pattern. (citing "Going the Distance: Human Population Genetics in a Clinal World," Trends in Genetics 23 (2008): 432-39.) (citing "Evidence for Gradients of Human Genetic Diversity Within and Among Continents," Genome Research 14 (2004): 1679-85. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Ossorio, Pilar N. (13 August 2013). "Chapter 9: Myth and Mystification: The Science of Race and IQ". In Krimsky, Sheldon; Sloan, Kathleen (eds.). Race and the Genetic Revolution: Science, Myth, and Culture. Columbia University Press. p. 177. ISBN 978-0-231-52769-9. Retrieved 31 August 2013. If one assesses the genetic variation in a group of Yoruba people from Nigeria, and in a group of Swedish people from the city of Malmo, somewhere between 85 percent and 95 percent of the genetic variants will be found in both groups, although some variants will be found at a higher frequency in one group than the other. Furthermore, if one examines a single gene or region of the genome, then an individual whose recent ancestors are from Lagos, Nigeria, may be more similar to somebody from Malmo, Sweden, than to most other people from Nigeria. Depending on how one measures, the component of genetic variation that occurs between human groups from different continents could be as low as 2.8 percent, whereas the component of genetic variation between human groups from the same continent could be 2.5 percent. If one associates races with particular continents, then all but 2.8 to 5 percent of the human genetic variation is found within any race. (citing "The Application of Molecular Genetic Approaches to the Study of Human Evolution," Nature Genetics Supplement 33 (2003): 266-75 ) (citing Jorde and Wooding, "Genetic Variation.") (citing "Response to Comment on 'Genetic Structure of Human Populations,'" Science 300 (2003):1877.) {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Ossorio, Pilar N. (13 August 2013). "Chapter 9: Myth and Mystification: The Science of Race and IQ". In Krimsky, Sheldon; Sloan, Kathleen (eds.). Race and the Genetic Revolution: Science, Myth, and Culture. Columbia University Press. p. 179. ISBN 978-0-231-52769-9. Retrieved 31 August 2013. Researchers can group people of Iceland according to the county or counties in which their ancestors (five generations back) were born. This does not mean that the people of Finland and Sweden are of different races, or that Iceland's counties are populated by different races. Also, keep in mind that only about 0.1 to 0.5 percent of the human genome differs from one person to another, and only 5 to 15 percent of that variation can be used to distinguish between human groups, so statistical grouping of people by patterns of genetic variation is based on a minute fraction of our genomes. Finally, it is crucial to reemphasize that the amount of genetic variation between groups is very small compared to the 85 to 95 percent of variation found between different individuals within human groups. (citing "An Icelandic Example of the Impact of Population Structure on Association Studies," Nature Genetics 37 (2005): 90-95. ) {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Ossorio, Pilar N. (13 August 2013). "Chapter 9: Myth and Mystification: The Science of Race and IQ". In Krimsky, Sheldon; Sloan, Kathleen (eds.). Race and the Genetic Revolution: Science, Myth, and Culture. Columbia University Press. p. 180. ISBN 978-0-231-52769-9. Retrieved 31 August 2013. Many nongenetic features of our world and ourselves are real because we make them so, we bring them into existence through beliefs, customs, laws, physical arrangements of our environment, and numerous everyday acts. Marriages, schools, and subways are not encoded in any person's genes, but they are all real. Likewise, race is real because people believe in it and act on those beliefs. Race is deeply rooted in the consciousness of individuals and groups, and it structures our lives and our physical world in myriad ways. It is a strong predictor of where people live, what schools they attend, where and how their spirituality is practiced, what jobs they have, and the amount of income they will earn. Race is real because human beings continually create and recreate it through the process of racialization. There is no unitary definition of race, no definition that applies in all places, at all times, and for all purposes. Scholars who include race as a variable in their studies must operationalize the concept of race in a manner that meets the needs of their study, while acknowledging that such "working definitions" merely "fulfill the need for an analytical strategy, they do not reflect a fixed social or biological reality." (citing Why Segregation Matters: Poverty and Educational Inequality (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Civil Rights Project, 2005). ) ( citing "An Overview of Trends in Social and Economic Well-being by Race," in America Becoming. ) ( citing Racial Formation in the United States, 2nd Edition (New York: Routledge, 1994). ) ( citing America Becoming, 4. ) {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Ossorio, Pilar N. (13 August 2013). "Chapter 9: Myth and Mystification: The Science of Race and IQ". In Krimsky, Sheldon; Sloan, Kathleen (eds.). Race and the Genetic Revolution: Science, Myth, and Culture. Columbia University Press. p. 181. ISBN 978-0-231-52769-9. Retrieved 31 August 2013. Scholars who study race generally agree on a few themes regarding how notions of race operate in society. One point of agreement is that race is a second-order construct—a belief about beliefs, behaviors, and traits. A person's racial self-identification, and her ascription of race to other people, is based on her beliefs about skin color, head shape, hair texture, religion, ancestry, language spoken, nationality, dress, political philosophy, and many other factors. Genes encode some of the traits on which people base racial attributions and identity, but genes do not encode all of them. Because a person's race is not reducible to her genetically encoded traits, one could know everything about a person's genome and still not know her race. Another point of agreement among race scholars is that race is a very malleable concept. This claim developed from numerous observations of how the meaning of racial categories, and the categories themselves, change over time. One well-known example of this malleability is that every decennial census since the early twentieth century has defined race differently than the previous census. Thus, a person who was white in one census might have been Mexican or black in another. Another example is that some people have a different race on their birth certificate and their death certificate. (citing "About Face: Forensic Genetic Testing for Race and Visible Traits," Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 34 (2006): 277-87 ) (Omin and Winant, Racial Formation; I. H. Lopez, White by Law (New York: New York University Press, 1996); M.A. Omi, "The Changing Meaning of Race," in America Becoming. " ( citing "Race on the 2010 Census: Hispanics and the Shrinking White Majority," Daedalus 134 (2005): 42-52; K. Prewitt, "Racial Classification in America: Where Do We Go from Here?" Daedalus 134 (2005): 5-17 ) {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Ossorio, Pilar N. (13 August 2013). "Chapter 9: Myth and Mystification: The Science of Race and IQ". In Krimsky, Sheldon; Sloan, Kathleen (eds.). Race and the Genetic Revolution: Science, Myth, and Culture. Columbia University Press. p. 184. ISBN 978-0-231-52769-9. Retrieved 31 August 2013. Hereditarian claims are based on the alleged heritability of IQ. Heritability assesses the way a trait varies in a population and purports to measure how much of that variation is explained by genetic differences within the population. The remaining variation is attributed to all other factors (the environment and nongenetic aspects of biology). If children in a classroom score between 90 and 180 on an IQ test, a hereditarian might claim that 65 percent of the 40 point difference in IQ is due to genetic differences between the students, and 35 percent is due to other factors. Strong proponents of hereditarian theories tend to believe that genetic differences explain as much as 85 percent of the variation in adult IQ in a population, but other scholars believe that genes explain much less than 50 percent of the variation in IQ. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Ossorio, Pilar N. (13 August 2013). "Chapter 9: Myth and Mystification: The Science of Race and IQ". In Krimsky, Sheldon; Sloan, Kathleen (eds.). Race and the Genetic Revolution: Science, Myth, and Culture. Columbia University Press. p. 186. ISBN 978-0-231-52769-9. Retrieved 31 August 2013. Research also undermines the hereditarian claim that IQ is the primary determinant of achievement. Many environmental variables predict achievement as well as or better than IQ, except for people whose IQ scores are at the abnormally low end of the scale. For instance, a person's social environment may be an important determinant of her achievement, yet variables that capture a person's social environment are often, literally, left out of the equation in work done by hereditarians. The social environment includes the expectations of one's peers, encouragement by one's parents and teachers, enrichment opportunities available in the neighborhood, etc. (citing Why Segregation Matters; Fisher et al., Inequality By Design; S.R. Sirin, "Socioeconomic Status and Academic Achievement: A Meta-analytic Review of Research," Review of Educational Research 75 (2005): 417-53. ) {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Ossorio, Pilar N. (13 August 2013). "Chapter 9: Myth and Mystification: The Science of Race and IQ". In Krimsky, Sheldon; Sloan, Kathleen (eds.). Race and the Genetic Revolution: Science, Myth, and Culture. Columbia University Press. p. 187. ISBN 978-0-231-52769-9. Retrieved 31 August 2013. The most likely explanation for the rise in IQ is that some relevant environmental factors have changed, causing people to develop in ways that are reflected in higher average IQ scores. Another piece of evidence concerning widespread environmental influences on IQ is that the mean difference between black Americans' and white Americans' test scores has narrowed since the 1970s. Using data from several different IQ tests that were administered in a standard manner to black and non-Hispanic white people, Dickens and Flynn showed that blacks have narrowed the IQ gap by one-third to one-half of what it was in the 1970s. If IQ were a fixed, intrinsic quality of races, then the IQ gap should be stable over time, but it is not. (citing "Black Americans Reduce the Racial IQ Gap," Psychological Science 17 (2006) :913-20. ) {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Ossorio, Pilar N. (13 August 2013). "Chapter 9: Myth and Mystification: The Science of Race and IQ". In Krimsky, Sheldon; Sloan, Kathleen (eds.). Race and the Genetic Revolution: Science, Myth, and Culture. Columbia University Press. p. 188. ISBN 978-0-231-52769-9. Retrieved 31 August 2013. Some researchers have attempted to correlate genetic markers with people's scores on tests of cognitive ability. Thus far, these studies have yielded some claims about gene variants that are correlated with variation in cognitive ability, but no research has demonstrated a causal connection between a particular gene variant and a particular degree of cognitive skill (within the normal ability ranges). Even proponents of such research note that "there are an unknown number of genetic influences on different abilities; [and] some ...proportion of these may be too small to feasibly be detected." When variants of particular genes have been associated with IQ, the effects reported are relatively small—in the range of a couple of IQ points—and few of the observed correlations have been replicated. In contrast, altering environmental factors, such as the quality of education and day care, has been associated with IQ variation of 30 points or more. (citing "Intelligence Research and Assessment in the United Kingdom," in International Handbook of Intelligence, ed. R.J. Sternberg, (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2004). ) (citing Nisbett, Intelligence and How to Get It. ) {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Ossorio, Pilar N. (13 August 2013). "Chapter 9: Myth and Mystification: The Science of Race and IQ". In Krimsky, Sheldon; Sloan, Kathleen (eds.). Race and the Genetic Revolution: Science, Myth, and Culture. Columbia University Press. p. 189. ISBN 978-0-231-52769-9. Retrieved 31 August 2013. Since 2005, other researchers have evaluated the same data on MCHPI and ASPM, plus some additional data, and concluded that there is no evidence that these genes have been under natural selection in modern humans. These reanalyses undercut the idea that the particular variants found at high frequency among people of European descent somehow made Europeans better adapted for modern civilization. Additional studies have discovered that the MCHPI and ASPM variants reported in the 2005 papers do not correlate with larger (or smaller) than average head size. The genes were originally described as having to do with head size because some variants of these genes can cause microcephaly (extremely small heads that lack major portions of the brain). However, those microcephaly-causing variants were not included in the studies published in 2005. Finally, several research groups have tried and failed to show any correlation between the variants described in the 2005 papers and IQ reading abilities, or verbal abilities. (citing "Comment on 'Ongoing Adaptive Evolution of ASPM, a Brain Size Determinant in Homo Sapiens' and 'Microcephalin, a Gene Regulating Brain Size Continues to Evolve Adaptively in Humans," Science 313 (2006): 172 (a); F.Yu, S.R.Hill, S.F.Schaffner, et al., "Comment on 'Ongoing Adaptive Evolution of ASPM, a Brain Size Determinant in Homo Sapiens,'" Science 316 (2007): 370 (b). ) {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Plomin, Robert; DeFries, John C.; Knopik, Valerie S. (24 September 2012). Behavioral Genetics. Shaun Purcell (Appendix: Statistical Methods in Behavioral Genetics). Worth Publishers. p. 87. ISBN 978-1-4292-4215-8. Retrieved 4 September 2013. Heritability estimates, like all statistics, include error of estimation, which is a function of the effect size and the sample size. . . . For this reason, heritability estimates based on a single study need to be taken as very rough estimates surrounded by a large confidence interval unless the study is very large. For example, if the correlation of 0.24 were based on a sample of 2000 instead of 200, there would be a 95 percent chance that the true heritability is between 40 and 56 percent. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Plomin, Robert; DeFries, John C.; Knopik, Valerie S. (24 September 2012). Behavioral Genetics. Shaun Purcell (Appendix: Statistical Methods in Behavioral Genetics). Worth Publishers. p. 88. ISBN 978-1-4292-4215-8. Retrieved 4 September 2013. For example, in Figure 3.7, IQ correlations for identical and fraternal twins are 0.85 and 0.60, respectively. Doubling the difference between these correlations results in a heritability estimate of 50 percent, which also suggests that about half of the variance of IQ scores can be accounted for by genetic factors. Because these studies include more than 10,000 pairs of twins, the error of estimation is small. There is a 95 percent chance that the true heritability is between 0.48 and 0.52. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Plomin, Robert; DeFries, John C.; Knopik, Valerie S. (24 September 2012). Behavioral Genetics. Shaun Purcell (Appendix: Statistical Methods in Behavioral Genetics). Worth Publishers. p. 89. ISBN 978-1-4292-4215-8. Retrieved 4 September 2013. For combination designs that compare several groups, and even for simple adoption and twin designs, modern genetic studies are typically analyzed by using an approach called 'model fitting'. Model fitting tests the significance of the fit between a model of genetic and environmental relatedness against the observed data. Different models can be compared, and the best-fitting model is used to estimate the effect size of genetic and environmental effects. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Plomin, Robert; DeFries, John C.; Knopik, Valerie S. (24 September 2012). Behavioral Genetics. Shaun Purcell (Appendix: Statistical Methods in Behavioral Genetics). Worth Publishers. p. 89. ISBN 978-1-4292-4215-8. Retrieved 4 September 2013. Heritability refers to the genetic contribution to individual differences (variance), not to the phenotype of a single individual. For a single individual, both genotype and environment are indispensable—a person would not exist without both genes and environment. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Plomin, Robert; DeFries, John C.; Knopik, Valerie S. (24 September 2012). Behavioral Genetics. Shaun Purcell (Appendix: Statistical Methods in Behavioral Genetics). Worth Publishers. p. 93. ISBN 978-1-4292-4215-8. Retrieved 4 September 2013. A related issue concerns average differences between groups, such as average differences between males and females, between social classes, or between ethnic groups. It should be emphasized that the causes of individual differences within groups have no implications for the causes of average differences between groups. Specifically, heritability refers to the genetic contribution to differences among individuals within a group. High heritability within a group does not necessarily imply that average differences between groups are due to genetic differences between groups. The average differences between groups could be due solely to environmental differences even when heritability within the groups is very high. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Plomin, Robert; DeFries, John C.; Knopik, Valerie S. (24 September 2012). Behavioral Genetics. Shaun Purcell (Appendix: Statistical Methods in Behavioral Genetics). Worth Publishers. p. 93. ISBN 978-1-4292-4215-8. Retrieved 4 September 2013. Finding heritability for individual differences within the normal range of variation does not necessarily imply that the average difference between an extreme group and the rest of the population is also due to genetic factors. For example, if individual differences in depressive symptoms for an unselected sample are heritable, this finding does not necessarily imply that severe depression is also due to genetic factors. This point is worth repeating: The causes of average differences between groups are not necessarily related to the causes of individual differences within groups. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Plomin, Robert; DeFries, John C.; Knopik, Valerie S. (24 September 2012). Behavioral Genetics. Shaun Purcell (Appendix: Statistical Methods in Behavioral Genetics). Worth Publishers. p. 93. ISBN 978-1-4292-4215-8. Retrieved 4 September 2013. A related point is that heritability describes what is in a particular population at a particular time rather than what could be. That is, if either genetic influences change (e.g., changes due to migration) or environmental influences change (e.g., changes in educational opportunity), then the relative impact of genes and environment will change. Even for a highly heritable trait such as height, changes in the environment could make a big difference, for example, if an epidemic struck or if children's diets were altered. Indeed, the huge increase in children's heights during the past century is likely to be a consequence of improved diet. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Plomin, Robert; DeFries, John C.; Knopik, Valerie S. (24 September 2012). Behavioral Genetics. Shaun Purcell (Appendix: Statistical Methods in Behavioral Genetics). Worth Publishers. p. 93–94. ISBN 978-1-4292-4215-8. Retrieved 4 September 2013. Most important, heritability has nothing to say about what should be. Evidence of genetic influence for a behavior is compatible with a wide range of social and political views, most of which depend on values, not facts. For example, no policies necessarily follow from finding genetic influences or even specific genes for cognitive abilities. It does not mean, for example, that we ought to put all our resources into educating the brightest children. Depending on our values, we might worry more about children falling off the low end of the bell curve in an increasingly technological society and decide to devote more public resources to those who are in danger of being left behind. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Plomin, Robert; DeFries, John C.; Knopik, Valerie S. (24 September 2012). Behavioral Genetics. Shaun Purcell (Appendix: Statistical Methods in Behavioral Genetics). Worth Publishers. p. 94. ISBN 978-1-4292-4215-8. Retrieved 4 September 2013. A related point is that heritability does not imply genetic determinism. Just because a trait show genetic influences does not mean that nothing can be done to change it. Environmental change is possible even for single-gene disorders. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Plomin, Robert; DeFries, John C.; Knopik, Valerie S. (24 September 2012). Behavioral Genetics. Shaun Purcell (Appendix: Statistical Methods in Behavioral Genetics). Worth Publishers. p. 94. ISBN 978-1-4292-4215-8. Retrieved 4 September 2013. For behavioral disorders and dimensions, the links between specific genes and behavior are weaker because behavioral traits are generally influenced by multiple genes and environmental factors. For this reason, genetic influences on behavior involve probabilistic propensities rather than predetermined programming. In other words, the complexity of most behavioral systems means that genes are not destiny. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Plomin, Robert; DeFries, John C.; Knopik, Valerie S. (24 September 2012). Behavioral Genetics. Shaun Purcell (Appendix: Statistical Methods in Behavioral Genetics). Worth Publishers. pp. 94–95. ISBN 978-1-4292-4215-8. Retrieved 4 September 2013. Finally, finding genetic influences on complex traits does not mean that the environment is unimportant. For simple single-gene disorders, environmental factors may have little effect. In contrast, for complex traits, environmental influences are usually as important as, or in some cases more important than, genetic influences. When one member of an identical twin pair is schizophrenic, for example, the other twin is not schizophrenic in about half the cases, even though members of identical twin pairs are identical genetically. Such differences within pairs of identical twins can only be caused by nongenetic factors. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Plomin, Robert; DeFries, John C.; Knopik, Valerie S. (24 September 2012). Behavioral Genetics. Shaun Purcell (Appendix: Statistical Methods in Behavioral Genetics). Worth Publishers. p. 105–106. ISBN 978-1-4292-4215-8. Retrieved 4 September 2013. One thing we know for sure about the environment is that it is important. Quantitative genetic research, reviewed in Chapters 11 to 19, provides the best available evidence that the environment is an important source of individual differences throughout the domain of behavior. Moreover, quantitative genetic research is changing the way we think about the environment. Three of the most important discoveries from genetic research in the behavioral sciences are about nurture rather than nature. The first discovery is that nonshared environmental influences are surprisingly large and important in explaining individual differences. The second discovery is equally surprising: Many environmental measures widely used in the behavioral sciences show genetic influence. This research suggests that people create their own experiences, in part for genetic reasons. This topic has been called the nature of nurture, although in genetics it is known as genotype-environment correlation because it refers to experiences that are correlated with genetic propensities. The third discovery at the interface between nature and nurture is that the effects of the environment can depend on genetics and that the effects of genetics can depend on the environment. This topic is called genotype-environment interaction, genetic sensitivity to environments. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Plomin, Robert; DeFries, John C.; Knopik, Valerie S. (24 September 2012). Behavioral Genetics. Shaun Purcell (Appendix: Statistical Methods in Behavioral Genetics). Worth Publishers. p. 106–107. ISBN 978-1-4292-4215-8. Retrieved 4 September 2013. Behavioral genetic research has found genetic influence nearly everywhere it has looked. Indeed, it is difficult to find any behavioral dimension or disorder that reliably shows no genetic influence. On the other hand, behavioral genetic research also provides some of the strongest available evidence for the importance of environmental influences for the simple reason that heritabilities are seldom greater than 50 percent. This means that environmental factors are also important. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Plomin, Robert; DeFries, John C.; Knopik, Valerie S. (24 September 2012). Behavioral Genetics. Shaun Purcell (Appendix: Statistical Methods in Behavioral Genetics). Worth Publishers. p. 122. ISBN 978-1-4292-4215-8. Retrieved 4 September 2013. Another analysis of this type showed that heritability of general cognitive ability is significantly greater in families with more highly educated parents (74 percent) than in families with less well educated parents (26 percent) (Rowe, Jacobson, & van den Oord, 1999), a finding replicated in four other studies for parental education and socioeconomic status (Harden, Turkheimer, & Loehlin, 2007; Kremen et al., 2005; Tucker-Drob, Rhemtulla, Harden, Turkheimer, & Fask, 2011; Turkheimer, Haley, Waldron, D'Onofrio, & Gottesman, 2003), although opposite results were found in a fifth study (Asbury, Wachs, & Plomin, 2005). A recent report took a longitudinal approach to examining the potential moderating effects of socioeconomic status on children's intelligence assessed eight times from ages 2 to 14 and found no evidence that socioeconomic status moderated heritability (Hanscombe et al., 2012). Life events were found to moderate heritability of cognitive ability in adults, with more life events reducing heritability (Vinkhuyzen, van der Sluis, & Posthuma, 2011). {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Plomin, Robert; DeFries, John C.; Knopik, Valerie S. (24 September 2012). Behavioral Genetics. Shaun Purcell (Appendix: Statistical Methods in Behavioral Genetics). Worth Publishers. p. 163. ISBN 978-1-4292-4215-8. Retrieved 4 September 2013. However, the term mental retardation is now considered pejorative, {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Plomin, Robert; DeFries, John C.; Knopik, Valerie S. (24 September 2012). Behavioral Genetics. Shaun Purcell (Appendix: Statistical Methods in Behavioral Genetics). Worth Publishers. p. 164. ISBN 978-1-4292-4215-8. Retrieved 4 September 2013. A similar result was found in the largest family study of mild cognitive disability, which considered 80,000 relatives of 289 mentally disabled individuals (Reed & Reed, 1965). This family study showed that mild mental disability is very strongly familial. If one parent is mildly disabled, the risk for cognitive disability in the children is about 20 percent. If both parents are mildly disabled, the risk is nearly 50 percent. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Plomin, Robert; DeFries, John C.; Knopik, Valerie S. (24 September 2012). Behavioral Genetics. Shaun Purcell (Appendix: Statistical Methods in Behavioral Genetics). Worth Publishers. p. 187. ISBN 978-1-4292-4215-8. Retrieved 4 September 2013. The phrase general cognitive ability is a better choice to describe g than the word intelligence because the latter has so many different meanings in psychology and in the general language (Jensen, 1998). General texts on g are available (Hunt, 2011; see Deary, 2012, for an overview of other books). {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Plomin, Robert; DeFries, John C.; Knopik, Valerie S. (24 September 2012). Behavioral Genetics. Shaun Purcell (Appendix: Statistical Methods in Behavioral Genetics). Worth Publishers. p. 187. ISBN 978-1-4292-4215-8. Retrieved 4 September 2013. In addition, just as there is more to cognition than g, there is clearly much more to achievement than cognition. Personality, motivation, and creativity all play a part in how well someone does in life. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Plomin, Robert; DeFries, John C.; Knopik, Valerie S. (24 September 2012). Behavioral Genetics. Shaun Purcell (Appendix: Statistical Methods in Behavioral Genetics). Worth Publishers. p. 190. ISBN 978-1-4292-4215-8. Retrieved 4 September 2013. A clear genotype-environment interaction emerged for the enriched and restricted environments. The enriched condition had no effect on the maze-bright rats, but it greatly improved the performance of the maze-dull rats. On the other hand, the restricted environment was very detrimental to the maze-bright rats but had little effect on the maze-dull ones. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Plomin, Robert; DeFries, John C.; Knopik, Valerie S. (24 September 2012). Behavioral Genetics. Shaun Purcell (Appendix: Statistical Methods in Behavioral Genetics). Worth Publishers. p. 193. ISBN 978-1-4292-4215-8. Retrieved 4 September 2013. After his death in 1973, Burt's work was attacked, with allegations that some of his data were fraudulent (Hearnshaw, 1979). Two subsequent books reopened the case (Fletcher, 1990; Joynson, 1989). Although the jury is still out on some of the charges (Mackintosh, 1995; Rushton, 2002), it appears that at least some of Burt's data are dubious. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Plomin, Robert; DeFries, John C.; Knopik, Valerie S. (24 September 2012). Behavioral Genetics. Shaun Purcell (Appendix: Statistical Methods in Behavioral Genetics). Worth Publishers. pp. 193–194. ISBN 978-1-4292-4215-8. Retrieved 4 September 2013. Then, in 1969, a monograph on the genetics of intelligence by Arthur Jensen almost brought the field to a halt because a few pages in this lengthy monograph suggested that ethnic differences in IQ might involve genetic differences. Twenty-five years later, this issue was resurrected in The Bell Curve (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994) and caused a similar uproar. As we emphasized in Chapter 7, the causes of average differences between groups need not be related to the causes of individual differences within groups. The former question is much more difficult to investigate than the latter, which is the focus of the vast majority of genetic research on IQ. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Plomin, Robert; DeFries, John C.; Knopik, Valerie S. (24 September 2012). Behavioral Genetics. Shaun Purcell (Appendix: Statistical Methods in Behavioral Genetics). Worth Publishers. p. 194. ISBN 978-1-4292-4215-8. Retrieved 4 September 2013. For g, the correlation between adopted children and their genetic parents is 0.24. Because first-degree relatives are only 50 percent similar genetically, doubling these correlations gives a rough estimate of heritability of 48 perecent. As discussed in Chapter 7, this outcome means that about half of the variance in IQ scores in the populations sampled in these studies can be accounted for by genetic differences among individuals. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Plomin, Robert; DeFries, John C.; Knopik, Valerie S. (24 September 2012). Behavioral Genetics. Shaun Purcell (Appendix: Statistical Methods in Behavioral Genetics). Worth Publishers. pp. 194–195. ISBN 978-1-4292-4215-8. Retrieved 4 September 2013. The twin method supports this conclusion. Identical twins are nearly as similar as the same person tested twice. (Test-retest correlations for g are generally between 0.80 and 0.90.) The average twin correlations are 0.86 for identical twins and 0.60 for fraternal twins. Doubling the difference between MZ and DZ correlations estimates heritability as 52 percent. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Plomin, Robert; DeFries, John C.; Knopik, Valerie S. (24 September 2012). Behavioral Genetics. Shaun Purcell (Appendix: Statistical Methods in Behavioral Genetics). Worth Publishers. pp. 195–196. ISBN 978-1-4292-4215-8. Retrieved 4 September 2013. Model-fitting analyses that simultaneously analyze all the family, adoption, and twin data summarized in Figure 12.6 yield heritability estimates of about 50 percent (Chipuer, Rovine, & Plomin, 1990; Loehlin, 1989). {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Plomin, Robert; DeFries, John C.; Knopik, Valerie S. (24 September 2012). Behavioral Genetics. Shaun Purcell (Appendix: Statistical Methods in Behavioral Genetics). Worth Publishers. p. 196. ISBN 978-1-4292-4215-8. Retrieved 4 September 2013. What about high g? In Chapter 11, we saw that most cognitive disability appears to be the low end of the same genetic and environmental factors that affect individual differences throughout the g distribution. The same story appears to apply to high g, as indicated by the first large-scale twin study of high g (Haworth, Wright, et al., 2009). {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Plomin, Robert; DeFries, John C.; Knopik, Valerie S. (24 September 2012). Behavioral Genetics. Shaun Purcell (Appendix: Statistical Methods in Behavioral Genetics). Worth Publishers. pp. 196–197. ISBN 978-1-4292-4215-8. Retrieved 4 September 2013. Direct estimates of the importance of shared environmental influence come from correlations for adoptive parents and children and for adoptive siblings. Particularly impressive is the correlation of 0.32 for adoptive siblings (see Figure 12.6). Because they are unrelated genetically, what makes adoptive siblings similar is shared rearing—having the same parents, the same diet, attending the same schools, and so on. The adoptive sibling correlation of 0.32 suggests that about a third of the total variance can be explained by shared environmental influences. The correlation for adoptive parents and their adopted children is lower (r = 0.19) than that for adoptive siblings, a result suggesting that shared environment accounts for less resemblance between parents and offspring than between siblings. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Plomin, Robert; DeFries, John C.; Knopik, Valerie S. (24 September 2012). Behavioral Genetics. Shaun Purcell (Appendix: Statistical Methods in Behavioral Genetics). Worth Publishers. p. 197. ISBN 978-1-4292-4215-8. Retrieved 4 September 2013. Twin studies also suggest shared environmental influence. In addition, shared environmental effects appear to contribute more to the resemblance of twins than to that of non-twin siblings because the correlation of 0.60 for DZ twins exceeds the correlation of 0.47 for nontwin siblings. Twins may be more similar than other siblings because they shared the same womb and are exactly the same age. Because they are the same age, twins also tend to be in the same school, even if not the same class, and share many of the same peers (Koeppen-Schomerus, et al., 2003). {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Plomin, Robert; DeFries, John C.; Knopik, Valerie S. (24 September 2012). Behavioral Genetics. Shaun Purcell (Appendix: Statistical Methods in Behavioral Genetics). Worth Publishers. p. 197. ISBN 978-1-4292-4215-8. Retrieved 4 September 2013. Model-fitting estimates of the role of shared environment for g based on the data in Figure 12.6 are about 20 percent for parents and offspring, about 25 percent for siblings, and about 40 percent for twins (Chipuer et al., 1990). The rest of the environmental variance is attributed to nonshared environment and errors of measurement. However, when these data are examined developmentally, a different picture emerges, as discussed later in this chapter. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Plomin, Robert; DeFries, John C.; Knopik, Valerie S. (24 September 2012). Behavioral Genetics. Shaun Purcell (Appendix: Statistical Methods in Behavioral Genetics). Worth Publishers. p. 197. ISBN 978-1-4292-4215-8. Retrieved 4 September 2013. For example, although there is some positive assortative mating for physical characteristics, the correlations between spouses are relatively low—about 0.25 for height and about 0.20 for weight (Spuhler, 1968). Spousal correlations for personality are even lower, in the 0.10 to 0.20 range (Vandenberg, 1972). Assortative mating for g is substantial, with average spousal correlations of about 0.40 (Jensen, 1978). In part, spouses select each other for g on the basis of education. Spouses correlate about 0.60 for education, which correlates about 0.60 with g. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Simonton, Dean Keith (2003). "Chapter 28: When Does Giftedness Become Genius? And When Not?". In Colangelo, Nicholas; Davis, Gary A. (eds.). Handbook of Gifted Education. Julian C. Stanley (Guest Foreword). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. p. 358–359. ISBN 978-0-205-34063-7. Many of the 301 geniuses in her sample would not have qualified for inclusion in Terman's longitudinal study, a discrepancy that she tried to handle in various ways. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Simonton, Dean Keith (2003). "Chapter 28: When Does Giftedness Become Genius? And When Not?". In Colangelo, Nicholas; Davis, Gary A. (eds.). Handbook of Gifted Education. Julian C. Stanley (Guest Foreword). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. p. 359. ISBN 978-0-205-34063-7. Both Terman and Cox thought of genius as a quantitative rather than qualitative attribute. The higher a person's IQ, the greater the intellectual talent, and hence the higher the level of genius. Accordingly, the IQ score should correlate highly with an individual's ultimate achievement. It did not turn out that way. In the Terman sample, not every gifted child became an eminent adult. Worse still, differences in IQ could not distinguish those who were successful from those who failed (Terman & Oden, 1959). {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Simonton, Dean Keith (2003). "Chapter 28: When Does Giftedness Become Genius? And When Not?". In Colangelo, Nicholas; Davis, Gary A. (eds.). Handbook of Gifted Education. Julian C. Stanley (Guest Foreword). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. p. 359. ISBN 978-0-205-34063-7. Only on rare occasions does variation in intellectual ability prove to be a conspicuous predictor of attained distinction (e.g., Simonton, 1986, 1991a). Why is it that a high IQ, however measured, does not always translate into adulthood genius? {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Simonton, Dean Keith (2003). "Chapter 28: When Does Giftedness Become Genius? And When Not?". In Colangelo, Nicholas; Davis, Gary A. (eds.). Handbook of Gifted Education. Julian C. Stanley (Guest Foreword). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. p. 359. ISBN 978-0-205-34063-7. It often happens that intelligence functions as a necessary but not sufficient agent of achievement. Below a certain IQ—the figure is often put at around IQ 120—the probability of adulthood eminence is minimal, but beyond that threshold level further increases in IQ will not necessarily translate into proportional amounts of distinction (Barron & Harrington, 1981; Cuilford, 1967; Simonton, 1985a). To be sure, an exceptionally high intellect may permit more attainments than an intellect somewhat less stratospheric (Benbow, 1992), but there are no guarantees. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Simonton, Dean Keith (2003). "Chapter 28: When Does Giftedness Become Genius? And When Not?". In Colangelo, Nicholas; Davis, Gary A. (eds.). Handbook of Gifted Education. Julian C. Stanley (Guest Foreword). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. p. 360. ISBN 978-0-205-34063-7. And we still have people calling themselves 'geniuses' because they score so many standard deviations above the mean on some equally limited test. Thus, an IQ of 132 admits you into Mensa, IQ 164 allows you to join Four Sigma, and IQ 228 makes you the brightest person in the world (viz. Marilyn Vos Savant). These conceptions of talent exalt one specific type of intellect and unfairly exclude the many equally valuable forms of intelligence. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Simonton, Dean Keith (2003). "Chapter 28: When Does Giftedness Become Genius? And When Not?". In Colangelo, Nicholas; Davis, Gary A. (eds.). Handbook of Gifted Education. Julian C. Stanley (Guest Foreword). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. p. 360–361. ISBN 978-0-205-34063-7. The frequency distribution of IQ scores indeed looks like the bell-shaped curve, with about two-thirds of the population having IQs within one standard deviation of the mean. Not only is the distribution roughly symmetrical, but virtually the entire human population will have an IQ score within four deviations from the mean. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Simonton, Dean Keith (2003). "Chapter 28: When Does Giftedness Become Genius? And When Not?". In Colangelo, Nicholas; Davis, Gary A. (eds.). Handbook of Gifted Education. Julian C. Stanley (Guest Foreword). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. p. 361–362. ISBN 978-0-205-34063-7. After gauging the personality characteristics of a sub-sample of 100 geniuses, she observed that drive and determination could more than compensate for a less than stratospheric IQ. In particular, she admitted that 'high but not the highest intelligence, combined with the greatest degree of persistence, will achieve greater eminence than the highest degree of intelligence with somewhat less persistence' (Cox, 1926, p. 187). {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Simonton, Dean Keith (2003). "Chapter 28: When Does Giftedness Become Genius? And When Not?". In Colangelo, Nicholas; Davis, Gary A. (eds.). Handbook of Gifted Education. Julian C. Stanley (Guest Foreword). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. p. 363. ISBN 978-0-205-34063-7. Genius is not just born; it is also made—by the environment in which the talented youth emerges. Genetic endowment merely offers the raw materials on which the events and circumstances of childhood and adolescence must operate. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Simonton, Dean Keith (2003). "Chapter 28: When Does Giftedness Become Genius? And When Not?". In Colangelo, Nicholas; Davis, Gary A. (eds.). Handbook of Gifted Education. Julian C. Stanley (Guest Foreword). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. p. 365. ISBN 978-0-205-34063-7. Yet when we turn to those who actually made names for themselves, the role of education becomes more ambiguous. First of all, those who get excellent grades and high honors are not necessarily more likely to achieve distinction in their chosen firlds; the correlations are either zero or very weakly positive (Cohen, 1984; Hudson, 1958; McClelland, 1973). As a consequence, there are many examples of unquestioned geniuses who showed themselves to be mediocre or even miserable scholars. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Simonton, Dean Keith (2003). "Chapter 28: When Does Giftedness Become Genius? And When Not?". In Colangelo, Nicholas; Davis, Gary A. (eds.). Handbook of Gifted Education. Julian C. Stanley (Guest Foreword). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. p. 365. ISBN 978-0-205-34063-7. But beyond that, increased formal education may only interfere with more important pursuits. For instance, success in many fields is strongly correlated with voracious and omnivorous reading, and undisciplined activity that may suffer under increased academic demands (McCurdy, 1960; Simonton, 1984b, p. 74). In addition, many domains of achievement require the slow acquisition of highly specialized techniques that are not always taught—or taught well—in formal academic settings. Whatever the details, we must recall that it usually takes about ten years of intense study to master the materials of a domain. The implication is clear. Distaste for that interference leads many talented young adults to become college dropouts—to their benefit. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Simonton, Dean Keith (2003). "Chapter 28: When Does Giftedness Become Genius? And When Not?". In Colangelo, Nicholas; Davis, Gary A. (eds.). Handbook of Gifted Education. Julian C. Stanley (Guest Foreword). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. ISBN 978-0-205-34063-7. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Sternberg, Robert J.; Grigorenko, Elena L.; Kidd, Kenneth K.; Stemler, Steven E. (13 August 2013). "Chapter 10: Intelligence, Race, and Genetics". In Krimsky, Sheldon; Sloan, Kathleen (eds.). Race and the Genetic Revolution: Science, Myth, and Culture. Columbia University Press. p. 196. ISBN 978-0-231-52769-9. Retrieved 31 August 2013. One way to figure out what intelligence is has been to ask experts. Two major symposia have done so. Each of the roughly two dozen definitions in each symposium was different. There were some common threads, such as the importance of adaptation to the environment and of the ability to learn. But these constructs themselves are not well specified. And very few tests of intelligence directly measure either one. Tests do not offer adaptive tasks one is likely to face in everyday life. Nor do any tests directly measure ability to learn, except dynamic tests that require learning at the time of test. Rather, traditional tests much more measure past learning, which can have resulted from differences in many things, including motivation and available opportunities to learn. (citing The Bell Curve (New York: Free Press, 1994); J.P. Rushton and A.R. Jensen, "Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability," Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 11, no. 2 (2005), 235-94. ) (citing "Intelligence and its measurement': A Symposium (1921)," Journal of Educational Psychology 12: 123-47, 195-216, 271-75; R. J. Sternberg and D. K. Detterman, eds., What Is Intelligence? (Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1986). (citing Dynamic Testing (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002). ) {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Sternberg, Robert J.; Grigorenko, Elena L.; Kidd, Kenneth K.; Stemler, Steven E. (13 August 2013). "Chapter 10: Intelligence, Race, and Genetics". In Krimsky, Sheldon; Sloan, Kathleen (eds.). Race and the Genetic Revolution: Science, Myth, and Culture. Columbia University Press. p. 197. ISBN 978-0-231-52769-9. Retrieved 31 August 2013. The way intelligence is usually defined in studies of the alleged relationships between intelligence, race, and genetics is in terms of Boring's operational definition of intelligence as whatever it is that IQ tests measure. This definition is unsatisfactory for at least three different reasons. First, the definition is circular, defining the construct in terms of the operation and the operation in terms of the construct. Second, so-called IQ tests do not all measure the same thing. Third, as we have seen, theorists of intelligence do not themselves agree as to what intelligence is. (citing "New Republic, June 6, 1923, 35-37.) (citing N. J. Mackintosh, IQ and Human Intelligence (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998). ) {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Sternberg, Robert J.; Grigorenko, Elena L.; Kidd, Kenneth K.; Stemler, Steven E. (13 August 2013). "Chapter 10: Intelligence, Race, and Genetics". In Krimsky, Sheldon; Sloan, Kathleen (eds.). Race and the Genetic Revolution: Science, Myth, and Culture. Columbia University Press. pp. 197–198. ISBN 978-0-231-52769-9. Retrieved 31 August 2013. As professionals, some of us may understand that there is a large gap between the conceptualization and operationalization of intelligence. Others of us may act as though IQ tests somehow provide the kind of measurement of intelligence that a tape measure provides of height. When we are dealing with the lay audiences who learn about our work, it is especially important that we acknowledge that we have nothing even vaguely close to a 'tape measure' of intelligence. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Sternberg, Robert J.; Grigorenko, Elena L.; Kidd, Kenneth K.; Stemler, Steven E. (13 August 2013). "Chapter 10: Intelligence, Race, and Genetics". In Krimsky, Sheldon; Sloan, Kathleen (eds.). Race and the Genetic Revolution: Science, Myth, and Culture. Columbia University Press. pp. 202–203. ISBN 978-0-231-52769-9. Retrieved 31 August 2013. Where does race fit into the genetic pattern? Actually, it fits nowhere. Race is a socially constructed concept, not a biological one. It derives from people's desire to classify. People seem to be natural classifiers. Perhaps this tendency reflects, in part, what Gardner has referred to as "naturalistic intelligence." Or perhaps it merely reflects a need to discern order in or even to impose it on nature. Any set of observations can be categorized in multiple ways. People impose categorization and classification schemes that make sense to them and, in some cases, that favor their particular goals. (citing "Are There Additional Intelligences? The Case for Naturalist, Spiritual, and Existential Intelligences," in Education, Information, and Transformation, ed. J.Kane (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1999), 111-31; H. Gardner, Intelligence Reframed. ) {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Sternberg, Robert J.; Grigorenko, Elena L.; Kidd, Kenneth K.; Stemler, Steven E. (13 August 2013). "Chapter 10: Intelligence, Race, and Genetics". In Krimsky, Sheldon; Sloan, Kathleen (eds.). Race and the Genetic Revolution: Science, Myth, and Culture. Columbia University Press. p. 211. ISBN 978-0-231-52769-9. Retrieved 31 August 2013. The more geographically distant individuals are from each other, the fewer genes they seem to have in common, on average. Third, the data presented by Templer and Arikawa and by Lynn showing correlations between 'national skin color' and 'national average IQ' suffer from many conceptual and methodological problems that have been addressed in detail by others in the literature. One of the more blatant problems with these data is that the samples used are not random selections from the population, but rather samples of convenience. (citing D.I. Templer and H. Arikawa, 'Temperature, Skin Color, Per Capita Income, and IQ: An International Perspective,' Intelligence 34 (2006): 21-139.) (citing Lynn, The Global Bell Curve.) (citing N. J. Mackintosh, Book review of Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Hypothesis, Intelligence 35 (2007): 94-96; R. J. Sternberg and E. Hunt, 'Sorry, Wrong Numbers: An Analysis of a Study of a Correlation Between Skin Color and IQ,' Intelligence 34 (2006): 131-37.) {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Sternberg, Robert J.; Grigorenko, Elena L.; Kidd, Kenneth K.; Stemler, Steven E. (13 August 2013). "Chapter 10: Intelligence, Race, and Genetics". In Krimsky, Sheldon; Sloan, Kathleen (eds.). Race and the Genetic Revolution: Science, Myth, and Culture. Columbia University Press. p. 213. ISBN 978-0-231-52769-9. Retrieved 31 August 2013. It is worth noting that in February 2001 the editors of the medical journal Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine asked authors no longer to use race as an explanatory variable and not to use obsolescent terms. Some other high-impact peer-reviewed medical journals, such as the New England Journal of Medicine and the American Journal of Public Health, have made similar appeals. (citing F.P. Rivara and L. Finberg, 'Use of the Terms Race and Ethnicity,' Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 155 (2001):119.) (citing see file) {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Sternberg, Robert J.; Grigorenko, Elena L.; Kidd, Kenneth K.; Stemler, Steven E. (13 August 2013). "Chapter 10: Intelligence, Race, and Genetics". In Krimsky, Sheldon; Sloan, Kathleen (eds.). Race and the Genetic Revolution: Science, Myth, and Culture. Columbia University Press. pp. 217–218. ISBN 978-0-231-52769-9. Retrieved 31 August 2013. Heritability (also referred to as h²) is the ratio of genetic variation to total variation in an attribute within a population. Thus, the coefficient of heritability tells us nothing about sources of between-population variation. Moreover, the coefficient of heritability does not tell us the proportion of a trait that is genetic in absolute terms, but rather, the proportion of variation in a trait that is attributable to genetic variation within a specific population. [para] Trait variation in a population is referred to as phenotypic variation, whereas genetic variation in a population is referred to as genotypic variation. Thus, heritability is a ratio of genotypic variation to phenotypic variation. Heritability has a complementary concept, that of environmentality. Environmentality is a ratio of environmental variation to phenotypical variation. Note that both heritability and environmentality apply to populations, not to individuals. There is no way of estimating heritability for an individual, nor is the concept meaningful for individuals. Consider a trait that has a heritability statistic equaling 70 percent; it is nonsense to say that the development of the trait in an individual is 70 percent genetic. [para] Heritability is typically expressed on a 0 to 1 scale, with a value of 0 indicating no heritability whatsoever (i.e., no genetic variation in the trait) and a value of 1 indicating complete heritability (i.e., only genetic variation in the trait). Heritability and environmentality add to unity (assuming that the error variance related to measurement of the trait is blended into the environmental component). Heritability tells us the proportion of individual-difference (variation) within a population. Thus, if IQ has a heritability of .50 within a certain population, then 50 percent of the variation in scores on the attribute within that population is due (in theory) to genetic influences. This statement is completely different from the statement that 50 percent of the attribute is inherited. [para] An important implication of these facts is that heritability is not tantamount to genetic influence. An attribute could be highly genetically influenced and have little or no heritability. The reason is that heritability depends on the existence of individual differences. If there are no individual differences, there is no heritability (because there is a 0 in the denominator of the ratio of genetic to total trait variation in a given population). For example, being born with two eyes is 100 percent under genetic control (except in the exceedingly rare case of severe dismorphologies, with which we will not deal here). Regardless of the environment into which one is born, a human being will have two eyes. But it is not meaningful to speak of the heritability of having two eyes, because there are no individual differences. Heritability is not 1: it is meaningless (because there is a 0 in the denominator of the ratio) and cannot be sensibly calculated. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Sternberg, Robert J.; Grigorenko, Elena L.; Kidd, Kenneth K.; Stemler, Steven E. (13 August 2013). "Chapter 10: Intelligence, Race, and Genetics". In Krimsky, Sheldon; Sloan, Kathleen (eds.). Race and the Genetic Revolution: Science, Myth, and Culture. Columbia University Press. p. 218. ISBN 978-0-231-52769-9. Retrieved 31 August 2013. Heritability is not a fixed value for a given attribute. Although we may read about 'the heritability of IQ,' there really is no single fixed value that represents any true, constant value for the heritability of IQ or anything else, as Herrnstein and Murray and most others in the field recognize. Heritability depends on many factors, but the most important one is the range of environments. Because heritability represents a proportion of variation, its value will depend on the amount of variation. As Herrnstein pointed out, if there were no variation in environments, heritability would be perfect, because there would be no other source of variation. If there is wide variation in environments, however, heritability is likely to decrease. (citing See Herrnstein and Murray, The Bell Curve.) (citing T.J. Bouchard, Jr., 'IQ Similarity in Twins Reared Apart: Findings and Responses to critics,' in Intelligence, Heredity, and Environment, ed. R.J. Sternberg and E.L. Grigorenko (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 126-160.) (citing R.J. Herrnstein, IQ in the Meritocracy (Boston: Alantic Monthly Press, 1973).) {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Sternberg, Robert J.; Grigorenko, Elena L.; Kidd, Kenneth K.; Stemler, Steven E. (13 August 2013). "Chapter 10: Intelligence, Race, and Genetics". In Krimsky, Sheldon; Sloan, Kathleen (eds.). Race and the Genetic Revolution: Science, Myth, and Culture. Columbia University Press. p. 219. ISBN 978-0-231-52769-9. Retrieved 31 August 2013. Because the value of the heritability statistic is relevant only to existing circumstances, it does not and cannot address a trait's modifiability. A trait could have zero, moderate, or even total heritability and, in any of these conditions, be not at all, partially, or fully modifiable. The heritability statistic deals with correlations, whereas modifiability deals with mean effects. Correlations, however, are independent of score levels. For example, adding a constant to a set of scores will not affect the correlation of that set with another set of scores. Consider height as an example of the limitation of the heritability statistic in addressing modifiability. Height is highly heritable, with a heritability of over .90. Yet height also is highly modifiable, as shown by the fact that average heights have risen dramatically throughout the past several generations. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Sternberg, Robert J.; Grigorenko, Elena L.; Kidd, Kenneth K.; Stemler, Steven E. (13 August 2013). "Chapter 10: Intelligence, Race, and Genetics". In Krimsky, Sheldon; Sloan, Kathleen (eds.). Race and the Genetic Revolution: Science, Myth, and Culture. Columbia University Press. p. 226. ISBN 978-0-231-52769-9. Retrieved 31 August 2013. The important message here is that the division lines between racial and ethnic groups 'are highly fluid and that most genetic variation exists within all social groups—not between them'. Studies based on hundreds of genetic polymorphisms confirm earlier studies such as that by Lewontin cited above and show that only 11 to 23 percent of observed genetic variation is due to differences among populations and that is mostly attributable to differences in allele frequencies, not all-or-nothing genetic differences. In fact, most common genetic variants exist in almost all populations. The overwhelming majority of the variation occurs among individuals with different genotypes within each population. (citing M. W. Foster and R. R. Sharp, 'Race, Ethnicity, and Genomics: Social Classifications as Proxies of Biological Heterogeneity,' Genome Research 12 (2002): 844-50, at 848.) (citing Lewontin, 'Annotation'; Lewontin, Human Diversity.) (citing Reviewed in Tishkoff and Kidd, 'Biogeography of Human Populations.') {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Urbina, Susana (2004). Essentials of Psychological Testing. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 77–78. ISBN 978-0-471-41978-5. Even if we know the type of test from which a score was obtained, we can be misled. Some tests of cognitive ability—in particular, many neuropsychological instruments—are scored in terms of number of errors or speed of performance, so that the higher the score, the less favorable the result. Moreover, we cannot even know how high "high" is without some kind of frame of reference. A score that sounds high—such as an IQ of 130, for example—may have quite different meanings depending on the test from which it was derived, the areas the test covers, and how recent its norms are, as well as specific aspects of the situation in which the score was obtained and the characteristics of the test taker. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Urbina, Susana (2004). Essentials of Psychological Testing. John Wiley & Sons. p. 1. ISBN 978-0-471-41978-5. A psychological test is a systematic procedure for obtaining samples of behavior, relevant to cognitive or affective functioning, and for scoring and evaluating those samples according to standards. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Urbina, Susana (2004). Essentials of Psychological Testing. John Wiley & Sons. p. 6. ISBN 978-0-471-41978-5. The second most basic fact about psychological tests is that they are products. Although this is an obvious fact, most people are not mindful of it. Tests are products primarily marketed to and used by professional psychologists and educators, just as the tools of dentistry are marketed and sold to dentists. The public at large remains unaware of the commercial nature of psychological tests because they are advertised through publications and catalogs targeted to the professionals who use them. Nevertheless, the fact remains that many, if not most, psychological tests are conceived, developed, marketed, and sold for applied purposes in education, business, or mental health settings. They also must make a profit for those who produce them, just like any other commercial product. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Urbina, Susana (2004). Essentials of Psychological Testing. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 13–14. ISBN 978-0-471-41978-5. Binet himself revised, expanded, and refined his first scale in 1908 and 1911. Its scoring developed into a system in which credit for items passed was given in terms of years and months so that a mental level could be calculated to represent quality of performance. In 1911 a German psychologist named William Stern proposed that the mental level attained on the Binet-Simon scale, relabeled as a mental age score, be divided by the chronological age of the subject to obtain a mental quotient that would more accurately represent ability at different ages. To eliminate the decimal, the mental quotient was multiplied by 100, and soon became known as the intelligence quotient, or IQ. This now-familiar score, a true ratio IQ, was popularized through its use in the most famous revision of the Binet-Simon scales—the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale—published in 1916 by Lewis Terman. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Urbina, Susana (2004). Essentials of Psychological Testing. John Wiley & Sons. p. 24. ISBN 978-0-471-41978-5. Examples of issues amenable to investigation through psychological assessment include • diagnostic questions, such as differentiating between depression and dementia; • making predictions, such as estimating the likelihood of suicidal or homicidal behaviors; and • evaluative judgments, such as those involved in child custody decisions or in assessing the effectiveness of programs or interventions. None of these complex issues can be resolved by means of test scores alone because the same test score can have different meanings depending on the examinee and the context in which it was obtained. Furthermore, no single test score or set of scores can capture all the aspects that need to be considered in resolving such issues. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Urbina, Susana (2004). Essentials of Psychological Testing. John Wiley & Sons. p. 26. ISBN 978-0-471-41978-5. Although the technical qualities of a number of tests are far from ideal and can contribute to problems in their use, it is generally conceded that the primary reason for test misuse lies in the insufficient knowledge or competence on the part of many test users. Tests may appear relatively simple and straightforward to potential users who are unaware of the cautions that must be exercised in their application. Because of this, in the past few decades, professional associations in the United States and elsewhere have been developing documents that outline more clearly and specifically than ever before the skills and knowledge base required for competent test use (American Association for Counseling and Development, 1988; Eyde, Moreland, Robertson, Primoff, & Most, 1988; International Test Commission, 2000; Joint Committee on Testing Practices, 1988). {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Urbina, Susana (2004). Essentials of Psychological Testing. John Wiley & Sons. p. 27. ISBN 978-0-471-41978-5. Qualification forms for test purchase are now included in the catalogs of all reputable test publishers. No matter how sincere publishers may be in their efforts to preserve the security of test materials and to prevent their misuse, the effectiveness of these efforts is by necessity limited. Not only is it not feasible to verify the qualifications that purchasers claim on the forms they submit, but in addition no formal set of qualifications—whether by education or by licensure—can ensure that an individual is competent to use a particular test properly in a given situation (see Chapter 7). {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Urbina, Susana (2004). Essentials of Psychological Testing. John Wiley & Sons. p. 40. ISBN 978-0-471-41978-5. In psychological testing, the use of ordinal numbers to convey test results is pervasive. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Urbina, Susana (2004). Essentials of Psychological Testing. John Wiley & Sons. p. 42. ISBN 978-0-471-41978-5. Example 2: The problem of ratio IQs. The original intelligence quotients devised for use with the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale (S-B) were ratio IQs. That is to say, they were real quotients, derived by dividing the mental age (MA) score a child had obtained on the S-B test by the child's chronological age (CA) and multiplying the result by 100 to eliminate the decimals. The idea was that average children would have similar mental and chronological ages and IQs of approximately 100. Children functioning below the average would have lower mental than chronological ages and IQs below 100, while those functioning above the average would have higher mental than chronological ages and IQs above 100. This notion worked fairly well for children in the early and middle school ages during which there tends to be a somewhat steady pace of intellectual development is far less uniform—and changes are often imperceptible—from years to year. The fact that the maximum chronological age used in calculating the ratio IQ of the original S-B was 16 years, regardless of the actual age of the person tested, created additional problems of interpretation. Furthermore, the mental age and chronological age scales are not at the same level of measurement. Mental age, as assessed through the first intelligence tests, was basically an ordinal-level measurement, whereas chronological age can be measured on a ratio scale. For these reasons, dividing one number by the other to obtain a quotient simply did not lead to logically consistent and meaningful results. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Urbina, Susana (2004). Essentials of Psychological Testing. John Wiley & Sons. p. 43. ISBN 978-0-471-41978-5. Problem 2: Whereas chronological age rises steadily, mental age does not. Since the highest mental age achievable on a given intelligence test cannot be limitless, even when a limit is placed on the maximum chronological age used to compute IQs—as was done in the S-B scale for a long time—the IQs that most adults can attain are artificially constrained compared to those of children and adolescents. Solution: Because of this and other problems with ratio IQs, as well as with the concept of mental ages, the use of the ratio IQ has been abandoned. The term IQ is now used for a score that is not a ratio IQ and is not even a quotient. This score, known as the deviation IQ, was pioneered by David Wechsler and is explained in Chapter 3. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Urbina, Susana (2004). Essentials of Psychological Testing. John Wiley & Sons. p. 43. ISBN 978-0-471-41978-5. In psychology, it is essential to keep in mind that most of our measurement scales are of an ordinal nature. Equality of units is approximated by the scales used in many types of test scores, but such equality is never as permanent or as complete as it is in the physical sciences, because the units themselves are relative to the performance of the samples from which they are devised. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Urbina, Susana (2004). Essentials of Psychological Testing. John Wiley & Sons. p. 59. ISBN 978-0-471-41978-5. Kurtosis Applied: The Hypothesis of Greater Male Variability. In the field of differential psychology, a long-standing hypothesis has held that the range of intelligence is greater among males than it is among females. The hypothesis arose from observations concerning the overrepresentation of males in the ranks of people of extraordinary accomplishments as well as in institutions for the mentally retarded. Although there has been much debate about this hypothesis and some support for it (see, e.g., Halpern, 1997; Hedges & Nowell, 1995), for a variety of reasons—including the nature of intelligence tests themselves—the issue is not settled. If the hypothesis of greater male variability proved to be accurate, it would mean that more males than females are at the extreme high and low ends of the distribution of intelligence test scores. In such a case, the distributions of intelligence test scores for females and males would differ in kurtosis. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Urbina, Susana (2004). Essentials of Psychological Testing. John Wiley & Sons. p. 66. ISBN 978-0-471-41978-5. In spite of the significance of his discovery, Galton's conclusions about the phenomenon of regression were not quite accurate (see Cowles, 2001). This was partly a result of restrictions in the data he used in his analyses and partly due to his misinterpretation of the causes of correlations between variables. Given that the genetic bases of heredity were unclear at the time when Galton was working on these problems, his misinterpretation of regression is understandable. Nevertheless, the procedures he developed to portray the relationship between variables have proved to be extremely useful in assessing the amount of variance shared by variables. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Urbina, Susana (2004). Essentials of Psychological Testing. John Wiley & Sons. p. 70. ISBN 978-0-471-41978-5. Conditions Necessary for the Use of the Pearson 'r' Although it is, by far, the most widely used correlation coefficient, the Pearson 'r' is appropriate only for data that meet certain conditions. Since Pearson developed his formula, many different methods have been developed to obtain correlation coefficients for various types of bivariate data. The derivation of the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient rests on the following assumptions: 1. The pairs of observations are independent of one another. 2. The variables to be correlated are continuous and measured on interval or ratio scales. 3. The relationship between the variables is linear; that is, it approximates a straight-line pattern, as described earlier. Whether the first and second of these assumptions or conditions have been met is easily ascertained from knowledge of the manner in which the data were collected and of the type of data at hand. If the pairs of scores or observations to be correlated are obtained independently of one another, the first assumption has been satisfied. If the data for both variables represent continuous quantities, the second assumption has been met. Satisfying the third, and most critical, assumption of the Pearson 'r' requires inspection of the scatterplot of the bivariate data to see whether the distribution of cases falls into the elliptical shape that is indicative of a linear relationship portrayed in Figure 2.6, Panel A. When this assumption is violated, the Pearson 'r' is not an accurate index of correlation. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Urbina, Susana (2004). Essentials of Psychological Testing. John Wiley & Sons. p. 81. ISBN 978-0-471-41978-5. 'Mental Age Scores' The notion of mental age scores was discussed in Chapter 2 in connection with the ratio IQs of the early Stanford-Binet intelligence scales. The mental age scores derived from those scales were computed on the basis of the child's performance, which earned credits in terms of years and months, depending on the number of chronologically arranged tests that were passed. In light of the difficulties presented by this procedure, described in Chapter2, this particular way of arriving at mental age scores has been abandoned. However, several current tests still provide norms that are presented as 'age equivalent scores' and are based on the average raw score performance of children of different age groups in the standardization sample. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Urbina, Susana (2004). Essentials of Psychological Testing. John Wiley & Sons. p. 81. ISBN 978-0-471-41978-5. Age equivalent scores, also known as 'test ages,' simply represent a way of equating the test taker's performance on a test with the average performance of the normative age group with which it corresponds. For example, if a child's raw score equals the mean raw score of 9-year-olds in the normative sample, her or his test age equivalent score is 9 years. In spite of this change in the procedures used to obtain age equivalent scores, inequalities in the rate of development at differences in behavioral attainments that can be expected with each passing year diminish greatly from infancy and early childhood to adolescence and adulthood. If this is not understood, or if the meaning of a 'test age' is extended to realms other than the specific behavior sampled by the test—as it is, for example, when an adolescent who gets a test age score of 8 years is described as having "the mind of an 8-year-old"—the use of such scores can be quite misleading. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Urbina, Susana (2004). Essentials of Psychological Testing. John Wiley & Sons. p. 83. ISBN 978-0-471-41978-5. 'Within-Group Norms' Most standardized tests use some type of 'within-group norms.' These norms essentially provide a way of evaluating a person's performance in comparison to the performance of one or more appropriate reference groups. For proper interpretation of norm-referenced test scores it is necessary to understand the numerical procedures whereby raw scores are transformed into the large variety of derived scores' that are used to express within-group norms. Nevertheless, it is good to keep in mind that all of the various types of scores reviewed in this section serve the simple purpose of placing a test taker's performance within a normative distribution. Therefore, the single most important question with regard to this frame of reference concerns the exact make-up of the group or groups from which the norms are derived. The composition of the normative or standardization sample is of utmost importance in this kind of test score interpretation because the people in that sample set the standard against which all other test takers are measured. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Urbina, Susana (2004). Essentials of Psychological Testing. John Wiley & Sons. p. 83. ISBN 978-0-471-41978-5. 'The Normative Sample' In light of the important role played by the normative sample's performance, the foremost requirement of such samples is that they should be representative of the kinds of individuals for whom the tests are intended. For example, if a test is to be used to assess the reading skills of elementary school students in Grades 3 to 5 from across the whole nation, the normative sample for the test should represent the national population of third-, fourth-, and fifth-grades in all pertinent respects. The demographic make-up of the nation's population on variables like gender, ethnicity, language, socioeconomic status, urban or rural residency, geographic distribution, and public- or private-school enrollment must be reflected in the normative sample for such a test. In addition, the sample needs to be sufficiently large as to ensure the stability of the values obtained from their performance. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Urbina, Susana (2004). Essentials of Psychological Testing. John Wiley & Sons. p. 83. ISBN 978-0-471-41978-5. The sizes of normative samples vary tremendously depending on the type of test that is standardized and on the ease with which samples can be gathered. For example, group ability tests used in school settings may have normative samples numbering in the tens or even hundreds of thousands, whereas individual intelligence tests, administered to a single person at a time by a highly trained examiner, are normed on much smaller samples—typically consisting of 1,000 to 3,000 individuals—gathered from the general population. Tests that require specialized samples, such as members of a certain occupational group, may have even smaller normative samples. The recency of the normative information is also important if test takers are to be compared with contemporary standards, as is usually the case. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Urbina, Susana (2004). Essentials of Psychological Testing. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 87–88. ISBN 978-0-471-41978-5. 'Test ceiling and test floor.' The issue of how to accommodate individuals at the highest and lowest ends of the spectrum of ability for which a test is designed is most relevant in the context of test development, discussed in Chapter 6. Nevertheless, at this point, it is worth noting that the individuals employed in standardizing a test do set the upper and lower limits of performance on that test. If a test taker reaches the highest score attainable on an already standardized test, it means that the 'test ceiling,' or maximum difficulty level of the test, is insufficient: one cannot know how much higher the test taker might have scored if there were additional items or items of greater difficulty in the test. Similarly, if a person fails all the items presented in a test or scores lower than any of the people in the normative sample, the problem is one of insufficient 'test floor.' In cases like these, the individuals in question have not been adequately tested. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Urbina, Susana (2004). Essentials of Psychological Testing. John Wiley & Sons. p. 93. ISBN 978-0-471-41978-5. 'A note about deviation IQs.' The scores known as 'deviation IQs' were introduced by David Wechsler in 1939 for use in his first intelligence scale, the Wechsler-Bellevue I, which later became the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS). These scores came into wider use after the first edition of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC) was published in 1949. They are called 'deviation' IWs to differentiate them from the original 'ratio' IQs used in the Stanford-Binet and other scales. Deviation IQs are obtained by adding the scale scores the test taker obtains on various subtests and locating this sum in the appropriate normative table, rather than by the MA/CA x 100 formula. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Urbina, Susana (2004). Essentials of Psychological Testing. John Wiley & Sons. p. 93. ISBN 978-0-471-41978-5. The Wechsler IQ-type score scale has been adopted by numerous other test developers to express the summary scores of various tests, including the Stanford-Binet's most recent edition, which used 15 as its standard deviation unit rather than its original standard deviation of 16. Among the multitude of tests that employ standard scores with a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15 are all of the major instruments designed to assess general cognitive functioning, such as the Kaufman series of tests (e.g., Kaufman-Assessment Battery for Children, Kaufman Adolescent and Adult Intelligence Test, etc.), the Differential Ability Scales, the Das-Naglieri Cognitive Assessment System, and many others. Although they share the same type of units as the Wechsler tests for their global or summary scores, all of these newer tests have discarded the use of the tem IQ to designate their scores. This is a sensible move because the so-called deviation IQs are 'not' quotients. Furthermore, as can be seen from the titles of some of the more recently developed instruments, test authors are increasingly abandoning the use of the word 'intelligence' to designate the construct assessed by their tests in favor of other, more neutral, items. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Urbina, Susana (2004). Essentials of Psychological Testing. John Wiley & Sons. p. 97. ISBN 978-0-471-41978-5. 'INTERTEST COMPARISONS' In most circumstances, norm-referenced test scores cannot be compared unless they are obtained from the same test, using the same normative distribution. An additional reason for lack of comparability of test scores stems from differences in scale units, like the various sizes of SD units discussed earlier in connection with deviation IQs. Furthermore, even when the tests, the norms, and the scale units employed are the same, test scores do not necessarily have the same meaning. When test scores are used in the context of individual assessment, it must be kept in mind that many other factors extraneous to the test may also enter into test results (e.g., the test taker's background and motivation, the influence of the examiners, and the circumstances under which the tests were taken). {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Urbina, Susana (2004). Essentials of Psychological Testing. John Wiley & Sons. p. 99. ISBN 978-0-471-41978-5. 'Fixed reference groups' provide a way of achieving some comparability and continuity of test scores over time. This method makes use of anchor tests embedded in each successive form of a test to provide a linkage to one or more earlier forms of the same test. In this fashion a test series becomes linked through a chain of common items to the scores of the group selected as a fixed reference for the purpose of maintaining the continuity of the score scale over time. The College Board's SAT is the best known example of a test that has made use of fixed reference groups. Until April of 1995, all SAT scores were expressed in terms of the mean and standard deviation of the 11,000 college applicants who took the test in 1941; on that scale, a score of 500 corresponded to the mean of the 1941 fixed reference group, a score of 400 fell 1 SD below that mean, and so on. After April of 1995, reported SAT scores reflect a 'recentering' of the score scale on contemporary college applicants, so that a score of 500 represents a current average level of performance on the test. The use of a fixed reference group on the SAT over several decades allowed for the evaluation of increases or declines in the caliber of performance of college applicants of different eras, as can be seen in Rapid Reference 3.4. In addition to the recentered standard scores, the percentile rank scores of college applicants on the SAT still can be, and still are, reported using the most recent group of college-bound seniors as a reference group. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Urbina, Susana (2004). Essentials of Psychological Testing. John Wiley & Sons. p. 99. ISBN 978-0-471-41978-5. 'Simultaneous norming' of two or more tests on the same standardization sample, often referred to as 'co-norming,' is yet another method used to achieve comparability of scores. By norming tests at the same time and on the same group of people, one can readily compare the performance of individuals or subgroups on more than one test, using the same standard. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Urbina, Susana (2004). Essentials of Psychological Testing. John Wiley & Sons. p. 100. ISBN 978-0-471-41978-5. This capability is particularly helpful when one wishes to contrast relative levels of performance on two or more psychological functions, such as expressive and receptive vocabulary levels or short- and lone-term memory, for the same individual or subgroup. The Woodcock-Johnson III (WJ III) provides an outstanding example of co-norming of two test batteries. The WJ III Tests of Cognitive Abilities (WJ III ACH) battery is meant to assess a person's academic strengths and weaknesses. These two batteries were normed on the same large sample of individuals, ranging from preschoolers to older adults, representative of the population of the United States, and thus provide ample opportunity for comparing intraindividual levels of performance in a number of indexes of cognitive functioning and academic skills. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Urbina, Susana (2004). Essentials of Psychological Testing. John Wiley & Sons. p. 102. ISBN 978-0-471-41978-5. Major test revisions of norm-referenced tests, on the other hand, require restandardization of the test with a new normative sample. Thus, when the changes are significant enough to justify differences in the test's scale or scoring, one is actually dealing with a new and different test, albeit a test that may bear some resemblance to and share the same title as previous versions. A preeminent example is the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale (S-B), which was first published in 1916. The fourth and fifth editions of the S-B, published in 1985 and 2003, respectively, are altogether different from its earlier versions in almost every respect and over time they have become more similar in form and content to the Wechsler scales than to the original S-B. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Urbina, Susana (2004). Essentials of Psychological Testing. John Wiley & Sons. p. 103. ISBN 978-0-471-41978-5. A puzzling longitudinal trend in the opposite direction, known as the 'Flynn effect,' has been well documented in successive revisions of major intelligence tests (like the S-B and the Wechsler scales) that invariably involve the administration of both the old and new versions to a segment of the newer standardization sample, for comparative purposes. Data from revisions of various intelligence tests in the United States as well as in other countries—extensively analyzed by J.R. Flynn (1984, 1987)—show a pronounced, longterm upward trend in the level of performance required to obtain any given IQ score. The Flynn effect presumably reflects population gains over time in the kinds of cognitive performance that intelligence tests sample. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Urbina, Susana (2011). "Chapter 2: Tests of Intelligence". In Sternberg, Robert J.; Kaufman, Scott Barry (eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 20–38, 20–21. ISBN 9780521739115. The latest edition of the 'Tests in Print' (TIP) series (Murphy, Spies, & Plake, 2006) lists 202 tests in the 'Intelligence and General Aptitude' category. Of these, only 27 tests use the term 'intelligence' in their titles. This number has not changed since the previous edition of TIP. By and large, the tests published in the past few decades avoid using intelligence in their titles, whereas the older tests continue to do so, even in their new editions, in order to provide continuity and because their names are well established. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Urbina, Susana (2011). "Chapter 2: Tests of Intelligence". In Sternberg, Robert J.; Kaufman, Scott Barry (eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 20–38, 21. ISBN 9780521739115. The newer measure, known as the 'deviation IQ', is the type of score currently in use by the major tests that still use the IQ. In spite of the label, the deviation IQ is no longer a quotient. Instead, IQs are now derived by comparing a person's performance or raw score on a test of intellectual abilities to norms established by the performance of a representative group—known as a 'normative or standardization sample'—of people in the person's age range. Raw scores for each normative age group are converted into standard scores with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation (SD) typically set at 15. The difference between a person's score and the average score of her or his age group—in SD units—determines the person's IQ. Thus, deviation IQ scores of 85 and 115 are 1 SD unit away from the mean and both reflect performance that deviates equally from the average performance of a comparable age group sample, but in opposite directions. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Urbina, Susana (2011). "Chapter 2: Tests of Intelligence". In Sternberg, Robert J.; Kaufman, Scott Barry (eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 20–38, 21. ISBN 9780521739115. Since test scores obtained from representative samples produce distributions resembling the normal curve model, they can be made to fit into the normal curve parameters so that 'approximately' 68% of the scores are within ±1 SD from the average, 95% are within ±2 SD, and 99% are within ±3 SD. This is just one of the reasons to be suspicious of reported IQ score much higher than 160, which—if the SD is set at 15—is a number that would represent performance at 4 SDs above the average and thus in the top one-tenth of 1% of the age group norm. IQ scores much higher than 160 cannot be obtained in most of the current tests of this type. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Urbina, Susana (2011). "Chapter 2: Tests of Intelligence". In Sternberg, Robert J.; Kaufman, Scott Barry (eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 20–38, 22. ISBN 9780521739115. Due to the controversies surrounding IQ scores and to the excessive and unjustified meanings that the IQ label has acquired, the use of IQs in scoring intelligence or general aptitude tests is rapidly being abandoned, replaced by terms such as 'General Ability Score or Standard Age Score'. In keeping with tradition, however, most of these scores are derived in the same way as deviation IQs and have a mean set at 100 and SDs of 15 or 16. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Urbina, Susana (2011). "Chapter 2: Tests of Intelligence". In Sternberg, Robert J.; Kaufman, Scott Barry (eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 20–38, 22. ISBN 9780521739115. Accounts of the history of intelligence testing and of the leading figures in that history, as well as of the controversies they generated, can be found in many scources. Among the most interesting and readable ones are those provided by Fancher (1985), Sokal (1987), and Zenderland (1998). {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Urbina, Susana (2011). "Chapter 2: Tests of Intelligence". In Sternberg, Robert J.; Kaufman, Scott Barry (eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 20–38, 23. ISBN 9780521739115. Terman decided to use the IQ formula—MA/CA times 100–to express scores on the SB scale. In spite of the fact that the SB was primarily suitable for children, this scale dominated the field of individual intelligence testing for the next few decades. The SB was singularly responsible for popularizing the IQ score, which became synonymous with intelligence and was adopted by several other tests of abilities, some of which are still in use today. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Urbina, Susana (2011). "Chapter 2: Tests of Intelligence". In Sternberg, Robert J.; Kaufman, Scott Barry (eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 20–38, 23. ISBN 9780521739115. Wechsler's deviation IQs, were very different from the SB IQs in that they were no longer quotients and could be meaningfully applied to people of all age groups. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Urbina, Susana (2011). "Chapter 2: Tests of Intelligence". In Sternberg, Robert J.; Kaufman, Scott Barry (eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 20–38, 24. ISBN 9780521739115. The Otis-Lennon School Ability Test, Eighth Edition (OLSAT8), which is the current version of the Group Intelligence Scale, is still widely used to evaluate cognitive abilities related to success in school from kindergarten to 12th grade. Another contemporary group test designed for the same purpose and population is the Cognitive Abilities Test, Form 6 (CogAT-6). {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Urbina, Susana (2011). "Chapter 2: Tests of Intelligence". In Sternberg, Robert J.; Kaufman, Scott Barry (eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 20–38, 24. ISBN 9780521739115. 'Do Intelligence Tests Really Measure Intelligence?' The short and simple answer to this question is no. Given that semantics play a large part in this answer, a review of the meaning of the terms in the question may clarify the answer. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Urbina, Susana (2011). "Chapter 2: Tests of Intelligence". In Sternberg, Robert J.; Kaufman, Scott Barry (eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 20–38, 24. ISBN 9780521739115. Whether what intelligence tests measure is intelligence, on the other hand, is far more complicated as even a casual perusal of the field should reveal. Although many people assume that since intelligence tests exist, it must be possible for intelligence to be measured, the fact is that intelligence is an abstraction, a construct we infer based on the data at our disposal and our own criteria. As such, it is not something everyone can agree on or quantify objectively. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Urbina, Susana (2011). "Chapter 2: Tests of Intelligence". In Sternberg, Robert J.; Kaufman, Scott Barry (eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 20–38, 24–25. ISBN 9780521739115. The closest Binet came to defining intelligence was in an article he co-authored with Simon (1904) in which they equate intelligence with judgment or common sense, adding that 'to judge well, to comprehend well, to reason well' (p. 197) are the essential activities' of intelligence. Unlike Galton, Binet believed that intelligence consists of a complex set of abilities—such as attention, memory, and reasoning—that are fluid and shaped by environmental and cultural influences. Binet was also far less inclined than Galton to believe that intelligence could be reliably or precisely measured. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Urbina, Susana (2011). "Chapter 2: Tests of Intelligence". In Sternberg, Robert J.; Kaufman, Scott Barry (eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 20–38, 25. ISBN 9780521739115. Aside from Binet, the other towering figure in the history of intelligence testing is David Wechsler. The test series that Wechsler developed starting in the 1930s, much like the scales originated by Binet in an earlier time, became the most widely used instruments for the individual assessment of intelligence and have been, for several decades, the standard against which other such tests are compared. Unlike Binet, however, Wechsler did provide a carefully crafted definition of intelligence which he modified somewhat over time. In the final version of that definition, Wechsler stated that intelligence is 'the aggregate or global capacity of the individual to act purposefully, to think rationally and to deal effectively with his [sic] environment' (1958, p.7). {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Urbina, Susana (2011). "Chapter 2: Tests of Intelligence". In Sternberg, Robert J.; Kaufman, Scott Barry (eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 20–38, 25–26. ISBN 9780521739115. Wechsler was uniquely qualified to address the topic of intelligence and its measurement. Near the end of his life, hoping to facilitate consensus about how to assess intelligence, Wechsler (1975) wrote an article in which he clearly aimed to debunk some of the common assumptions about the nature and meaning of intelligence that had led to the many conflicting views of it. Among the more interesting points Wechsler made in this article, were the following: • intelligence is not a quality of mind, but an aspect of behavior; • intelligence can neither be defined in absolute terms nor equated with cognitive ability; • intelligent behavior requires nonintellectual capabilities, such as drive and persistence, as well as the ability to perceive and respond to social and aesthetic values; and • intelligent behavior must not only be rational and purposeful; it must also be esteemed. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Urbina, Susana (2011). "Chapter 2: Tests of Intelligence". In Sternberg, Robert J.; Kaufman, Scott Barry (eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 20–38, 26. ISBN 9780521739115. all intelligence tests—indeed all psychological tests of any kind—measure nothing more or less than samples of behavior. In the case of intelligence tests, the behavior samples are relevant to cognitive abilities of one sort or another and these abilities, in turn, have a very significant impact in various life outcomes, such as educational and occupational success. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Urbina, Susana (2011). "Chapter 2: Tests of Intelligence". In Sternberg, Robert J.; Kaufman, Scott Barry (eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 20–38, 26. ISBN 9780521739115. To a large extent, performance on vocabulary tests depends on the amount of reading people do and —all other things being equal—people who read more tend to acquire a larger fund of knowledge, understand verbal communications better, and do better in academic work than people who read less. Thus, while all that is more sured by a vocabulary test—provided the words have been correctly scaled in terms of difficulty and provided the age group used for comparison is appropriate—is the level of a test taker's vocabulary compared to her or his age peers, what we can infer based on that measure is much more than that. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Urbina, Susana (2011). "Chapter 2: Tests of Intelligence". In Sternberg, Robert J.; Kaufman, Scott Barry (eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 20–38, 27. ISBN 9780521739115. If we agree with Wechsler's argument, reiterated by Anne Anastasi years later, that 'intelligence is....a quality of behavior' and that intelligent behavior is displayed in 'effective ways of coping with the demands of a changing environment' (Anastasi, 1986, pp. 19-20), it follows that intelligence cannot be measured or encompassed by a single number. Nevertheless, for approximately the first half of the 20th century, from the time of the original Binet-Simon scales until the Wechsler scales for adults and children took over the pre-eminent role in intelligence testing, many—if not most—psychologists and educators as well as the general public assumed that the IQ was just such a number. This erroneous assumption was due in part to the enormous influence of the Stanford-Binet, which for much of its history yielded a single global IQ score that generally seemed to correctly classify people at the extreme levels of intellectual functioning. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Urbina, Susana (2011). "Chapter 2: Tests of Intelligence". In Sternberg, Robert J.; Kaufman, Scott Barry (eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 20–38, 27. ISBN 9780521739115. Although it must not be assumed that the g factor and intelligence are the same, or that an IQ score is a direct measure of g, the major comprehensive intelligence test batteries are made up of subtests which, for the most part, have high loadings on g, as shown by factor analyses of their intercorrelations. In addition to the findings of numerous factor analytic studies, the major arguments for the validity of intelligence tests are based on [a] their high levels of reliability, as demonstrated by internal consistency and temporal stability coefficients that are typically in the .90s range for the total scores and global indices; [b] the extremely high correlations—in the .80s and .90s range—between the global scores produced by most of the major intelligence tests; and [c] the marked differences in the scores that various special populations, such as individuals with different levels of mental retardation or various learning disabilities, obtain [see, e.g., Flanagan & Harrison, 2005; Kaufman & Lichtenbergere, 2006]. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Urbina, Susana (2011). "Chapter 2: Tests of Intelligence". In Sternberg, Robert J.; Kaufman, Scott Barry (eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 20–38, 27–28. ISBN 9780521739115. There are, at least, four basic ways in which intelligence tests may be classified: [a] by administration mode, that is, individual versus group tests; [b] by the population for which they are intended, such as tests aimed at children or adults, or at other specific groups; [c] by type of content, such as verbal and nonverbal tests; and [d] by whether they are full-length batteries or abbreviated versions. Although this classification of tests is based on those that carry the term intelligence in their title, it could just as well apply to those that use different labels, such as general or cognitive ability tests. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Urbina, Susana (2011). "Chapter 2: Tests of Intelligence". In Sternberg, Robert J.; Kaufman, Scott Barry (eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 20–38, 29–30. ISBN 9780521739115. For the purpose of the discussion that follows, the term intelligence tests referes only to the full-length comprehensive batteries—based on large and representative samples of children or adults in the United States population—that are individually administered, regardless of whether their titles include the word intelligence. The major current examples of this type of test batteries—besides the Stanford-Binet, Fifth Edition [SB5; Roid, 2003] and the Wechsler scales [WAIS-IV, WISC-IV, & WPPSI-III; Wechsler, 2008, 2003, 2002]—are the Cognitive Assessment System [CAS; Naglieri & Das, 1997], the Differential Ability Scales [DAS-II: Elliott, 2007], the Kaufman Adolescent and Adult Intelligence Scale [KAIT; Kaufman & Kaufman, 1993], the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, Second Edition [KABC-II; Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004], the Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales [RIAS; Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2003], and the Woodcock-Johnson III Test of Cognitive Abilities [WJ III; Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001]. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Urbina, Susana (2011). "Chapter 2: Tests of Intelligence". In Sternberg, Robert J.; Kaufman, Scott Barry (eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 20–38, 30. ISBN 9780521739115. Although some group tests, brief tests, or tests that sample only nonverbal content are often used for the same purposes as the comprehensive intelligence tests, their limitations in length, content, or mode of administration are such that they cannot provide the same wealth of information that intelligence test batteries do. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Urbina, Susana (2011). "Chapter 2: Tests of Intelligence". In Sternberg, Robert J.; Kaufman, Scott Barry (eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 20–38, 30. ISBN 9780521739115. The impact that intelligence tests have had on both the professional and lay notions of what intelligence is, and on the almost complete identification of intelligence with the IQ score, cannot be overestimated. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Urbina, Susana (2011). "Chapter 2: Tests of Intelligence". In Sternberg, Robert J.; Kaufman, Scott Barry (eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 20–38, 31. ISBN 9780521739115. As time went by, however, the Wechsler scales acquired an overwhelming popularity compared to the SB, especially among clinical psychologists who realized that the variety of scores the Wechsler scales yielded afforded the opportunity to develop diagnostically significant interpretive hypothesis based on particulare aspects of an examinee's performance. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Urbina, Susana (2011). "Chapter 2: Tests of Intelligence". In Sternberg, Robert J.; Kaufman, Scott Barry (eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 20–38, 32. ISBN 9780521739115. One of the first significant steps in the development of a new generation of intelligence tests was the publication of the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children [K-ABC; Kaufman & Kaufman, 1983]. In developing this instrument, Alan and Nadine Kaufman used the differentiation between sequential and simultaneous types of cognitive processing, based on the theories of the Russian neuropsychologist A. R. Luria, as one of the organizing principles in their battery. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Urbina, Susana (2011). "Chapter 2: Tests of Intelligence". In Sternberg, Robert J.; Kaufman, Scott Barry (eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 20–38, 32. ISBN 9780521739115. Alan Kaufman—who had had a major role in the revision of the original Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—published an influential book [Kaufman, 1979] that propsed a more sophisticated method for analyzing and interpreting WISC-R data. Kaufman's intelligent testing system was grounded on cognitive theories as well as factor analytic research. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Urbina, Susana (2011). "Chapter 2: Tests of Intelligence". In Sternberg, Robert J.; Kaufman, Scott Barry (eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 20–38, 32. ISBN 9780521739115. The ideas that had been percolating for some time concerning the limitations of the traditional scales, as well as the possibility of developing intelligence tests that would reflect advances in theories of cognitive trait organization and that would apply the information collected in over six decades of factor analytic research on measures of cognitive abilities, gave impetus to the development of new and improved tests of intelligence. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Urbina, Susana (2011). "Chapter 2: Tests of Intelligence". In Sternberg, Robert J.; Kaufman, Scott Barry (eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 20–38, 33. ISBN 9780521739115. In addition to the structural revisions made by the traditional intelligence test batteries, a number of completely new instruments—with new scales and novel types of items—have also been appearing in the past few decades. Most of these make use to some extent or another of what has come to be known as the Cattell-Horn-Carroll [CHC] model of cognitive abilities. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Urbina, Susana (2011). "Chapter 2: Tests of Intelligence". In Sternberg, Robert J.; Kaufman, Scott Barry (eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 20–38, 34–35. ISBN 9780521739115. As far as group tests of intelligence and general aptitude are concerned, most of those listed in TIP can produce good estimates of general intellectual ability or g, provided their content is appropriate for the age, culture, educational beckground, and any special characteristics or disabilities of the examinee. They can also produce such estimates at low cost and without the need of extensive apparatus. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Urbina, Susana (2011). "Chapter 2: Tests of Intelligence". In Sternberg, Robert J.; Kaufman, Scott Barry (eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 20–38, 35. ISBN 9780521739115. With regard to the individually administered comprehensive intelligence test batteries that have been discussed here, the situation is somewhat different. To be sure, most of them can also provide good estimates of general intellectual ability and fulfill the original purpose for which the Binet and the Wechsler scales were developed. If that were all they could do, however, their coast and the extensive training required to properly administer them, score them, and interpret their results would not be justified. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Urbina, Susana (2011). "Chapter 2: Tests of Intelligence". In Sternberg, Robert J.; Kaufman, Scott Barry (eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 20–38, 35. ISBN 9780521739115. The reason that individual intelligence tests are likely to endure is tied to their versatility and clinical usefulness. They essentially provide a standardized and structured interview script that the well-trained user can employ for gathering a broad sample of behavioral data relevant to cognitive functioning while observing stylistic variations that can also reveal clinically significant personality data. In the survey published by Camara et al. [2000], for example, out of the top 20 most frequently used tests, the WAIS-R was ranked in first place by clinical psychologists and in second place by neuropsychologists. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2012). "Chapter 1: A History of Intelligence Assessment: The Unfinished Tapestry". In Flanagan, Dawn P.; Harrison, Patti L. (eds.). Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (Third ed.). New York (NY): Guilford Press. pp. 3–55, 3. ISBN 978-1-60918-995-2. When our intelligence scales have become more accurate and the laws governing IQ changes have been more definitively established it will then be possible to say that there is nothing about an individual as important as his IQ, except possibly his morals; that the greatest educational problem is to determine the kind of education best suited to each IQ level; that the first concern of a nation should be the average IQ of its citizens, and the eugenic and dysgenic influences which are capable of raising or lowering that level; that the great test problem of democracy is how to adjust itself to the large IQ differences which can be demonstrated to exist among the members of any race or nationality group. —Lewis M. Terman (1922b) {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2012). "Chapter 1: A History of Intelligence Assessment: The Unfinished Tapestry". In Flanagan, Dawn P.; Harrison, Patti L. (eds.). Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (Third ed.). New York (NY): Guilford Press. pp. 3–55, 3. ISBN 978-1-60918-995-2. Intelligence is arguably the most researched topic in the history of psychology, and the concept of general intelligence has been described as 'one of the most central phenomena in all of behavioral science, with broad explanatory powers' (Jensen, 1998, p. xii). {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2012). "Chapter 1: A History of Intelligence Assessment: The Unfinished Tapestry". In Flanagan, Dawn P.; Harrison, Patti L. (eds.). Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (Third ed.). New York (NY): Guilford Press. pp. 3–55, 6. ISBN 978-1-60918-995-2. The most prominent British philosopher of his era, Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) sought to synthesize universal natural laws (especially evolution) across the disciplines of biology, psychology, sociology, and ethics. Spencer coined the phrase 'survival of the fittest' (p. 444) in The Principles of Biology (1864) after reading Charles Darwin (1859), although he was reluctant to accept Darwin's evolutionary mechanism of natural selection. In The Principles of Psychology (1855), Spencer described how the behavior of the individual organism adapts through interaction with the environment, and defined intelligence as a 'continuous adjustment' of 'inner to outer relations' (p. 486). Spencer's ideas persist in a number of ways to this day. Intelligence, as we shall see, is still widely considered to represent a capacity associated with adaptation to one's environment. In a critical review of Spencer's synthesis, John Dewey (1940) was struck by the luck that Spencer and Darwin published almost simultaneously, thereby making their very different concepts of evolution indistinguishable to the public. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2012). "Chapter 1: A History of Intelligence Assessment: The Unfinished Tapestry". In Flanagan, Dawn P.; Harrison, Patti L. (eds.). Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (Third ed.). New York (NY): Guilford Press. pp. 3–55, 6. ISBN 978-1-60918-995-2. It is difficult to overstate the impact of Darwin's theory of evolution on psychology. By considering human behavior in an evolutionary context, Darwin treated the study of psychology as no less a science than biology and other natural sciences. His influence was substantial and may be seen, for example, in Joseph Jastrow's (1901) American Psychological Association (APA) presidential address to start the 20th century. Jastrow described psychology as both a laboratory science and an applied science, setting the study of intelligence in a somewhat Spencerian evolutionary context: [para] Intelligence must first be realized as an advantage-gaining factor in the evolutionary struggle; that struggle is not merely, and indeed in all the stages that here come into consideration, not mainly a conflict of tooth and nail, a contest of strength of claw and fleetness of foot, but a war of wits, and encounter of skill and cunning, a measure of strategy and foresight. (p.9) {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2012). "Chapter 1: A History of Intelligence Assessment: The Unfinished Tapestry". In Flanagan, Dawn P.; Harrison, Patti L. (eds.). Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (Third ed.). New York (NY): Guilford Press. pp. 3–55, 8. ISBN 978-1-60918-995-2. Galton never directly asserted that his tests measured intelligence. Instead, he observed that sensory measures are relevant in determining the breadth of experience upon which intelligence can operate: [para] The only information that reaches us concerning outward events appears to pass through the avenue of our senses; and the more perceptive our senses are of difference, the larger is the field upon which our judgment and intelligence can act. (Galton, 1907, p.19) {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2012). "Chapter 1: A History of Intelligence Assessment: The Unfinished Tapestry". In Flanagan, Dawn P.; Harrison, Patti L. (eds.). Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (Third ed.). New York (NY): Guilford Press. pp. 3–55, 8. ISBN 978-1-60918-995-2. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2012). "Chapter 1: A History of Intelligence Assessment: The Unfinished Tapestry". In Flanagan, Dawn P.; Harrison, Patti L. (eds.). Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (Third ed.). New York (NY): Guilford Press. pp. 3–55. ISBN 978-1-60918-995-2. In 1890, he acknowledged that only research could reveal the most important areas of human functioning to measure, through careful examination of test results and correlations with external criteria: [para] One of the most important objects of measurement is hardly if at all alluded to here and should be emphasized. It is to obtain a general knowledge of the capacities of a man by sinking shafts, as it were, at a few critical points. In order to ascertain the best points for the purpose, the sets of measures should be compared with an independent estimate of the man's powers. We thus may learn which of the measures are the most instructive. (Galton, 1890a, p. 380) The uncertainty, of course, was where to sink the 'shafts'—or, in other words, which abilities to measure. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2012). "Chapter 1: A History of Intelligence Assessment: The Unfinished Tapestry". In Flanagan, Dawn P.; Harrison, Patti L. (eds.). Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (Third ed.). New York (NY): Guilford Press. pp. 3–55, 10. ISBN 978-1-60918-995-2. Cattell made his principal research initiative at Columbia an investigation to determine whether a battery of Galtonian anthropometric tests and sensory, motor, and higher cognitive tasks could constitute a measure of intelligence. Beginning in 1894, the Cattell-Columbia Tests (as Cattell referred to them in 1924) were given to freshmen at Columbia's School of Arts and School of Mines. With student consent, the tests were to be repeated at the end of the sophomore and senior years. In the course of an hour, 26 measurements were made in the laboratory, and 44 observations were recorded. Later, each student sent in answers to 50 questions with regard to background, health, physical condition, habits (including coffee, smoking, alcohol use, and exercise), and interests. Cattell also had access to student academic records and athletic accomplishments. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2012). "Chapter 1: A History of Intelligence Assessment: The Unfinished Tapestry". In Flanagan, Dawn P.; Harrison, Patti L. (eds.). Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (Third ed.). New York (NY): Guilford Press. pp. 3–55, 11. ISBN 978-1-60918-995-2. First, a dissertation completed by Stella Sharp (1899) in Edward B. Titchener's laboratory at Cornell University sought to examine the variability of complex mental processes and the relations between complex mental processes, with the intention of demonstrating the practicality of testing complex processes rather than the simpler mental processes endorsed by Cattell and Galton. She assessed seven advanced philosophy students at the university with the test battery formulated by Binet and Henri (1895), including measures of memory, mental images, imagination, attention, observation/comprehension, suggestibility, and aesthetic tastes. Her results listed the scores of individual participants and described these results in terms of rank order and variability. Sharp concluded: [para] We concur with Mm. Binet and Henri in believing that individual psychical differences should be sought for in the complex rather than in the elementary processes of mind, and that the test method is the most workable one that has yet been proposed for investigating these processes. (Sharp, 1899, p. 390) {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2012). "Chapter 1: A History of Intelligence Assessment: The Unfinished Tapestry". In Flanagan, Dawn P.; Harrison, Patti L. (eds.). Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (Third ed.). New York (NY): Guilford Press. pp. 3–55, 11. ISBN 978-1-60918-995-2. The second blow to Cattell's testing program, and its coup de grâce, came from a Columbia University psychology graduate student, Clark Wissler (1901). Wissler examined the correlations between the Cattell-Columbia Tests and student grades for 300 undergraduates at Columbia and Barnard Colleges. He reported that while isolated correlations were large (e.g., height and weight r = .66; Latin and Greek grades r = .75), the laboratory mental tests had negligible correlations with each other and with college class grades. The failure to correlate with academic grades was considered fatal to Cattell's testing program because academic performance had long been considered an independent criterion measure of intelligence. In the words of Cattell's biographer, Wissler's analysis would definitively 'discredit anthropometric testing' (Sokal, 2006, p. 29). {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2012). "Chapter 1: A History of Intelligence Assessment: The Unfinished Tapestry". In Flanagan, Dawn P.; Harrison, Patti L. (eds.). Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (Third ed.). New York (NY): Guilford Press. pp. 3–55, 11. ISBN 978-1-60918-995-2. It remains to note that over a century after Galton's and Cattell's testing programs were discredited, the relations of elementary cognitive processes (reaction time and sensory discrimination) to mental abilities and intelligence are now being revisited. Jensen (2006) has effectively summarized the literature relating reaction time to intelligence, while Deary and his colleagues (Deary, 1994; Deary, Bell, Bell, Campbell, & Fazal, 2004) have documented findings with sensory discrimination and intelligence. There is uniform agreement as to the serious methodological flaws in the Sharp and Wissler studies, including small sample size, restriction of range, and unreliability of measures (e.g., Buckhalt, 1991; Deary, 1994; Jensen, 2006). {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2012). "Chapter 1: A History of Intelligence Assessment: The Unfinished Tapestry". In Flanagan, Dawn P.; Harrison, Patti L. (eds.). Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (Third ed.). New York (NY): Guilford Press. pp. 3–55, 12. ISBN 978-1-60918-995-2. Although he is remembered for his intelligence test (from which he does not appear to have profited financially), Alfred Binet was a remarkably productive and versatile researcher, authoring nearly 300 works during his career; he is now credited with pioneering experimental investigations in areas of abnormal, cognitive, developmental, educational, forensic, personality, and social psychology (e.g., Siegler, 1992; Wolf, 1973). Regrettably, most of his work has never been translated into English, although nearly all of it has been brought back into print in the last decade. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2012). "Chapter 1: A History of Intelligence Assessment: The Unfinished Tapestry". In Flanagan, Dawn P.; Harrison, Patti L. (eds.). Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (Third ed.). New York (NY): Guilford Press. pp. 3–55, 14. ISBN 978-1-60918-995-2. Comparison of his children's performances with each other and with those of adults led Binet to conclude that complex, multidimensional tasks were more sensitive to developmental changes than narrow, unidimensional tasks. He further concluded that a mental developmental progression from childhood through adulthood should be reflected in task performance: [para] In case one should succeed in measuring intelligence—that is to say, reasoning, judgment, memory, the ability to make abstractions—which appears not absolutely impossible to me, the figure that would represent the average intellectual development of an adult would present an entirely different relation to that of the figure representing the intellectual development of a child. (Binet, 1890, p. 74, translated by Wolf, 1955, p. 235) {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2012). "Chapter 1: A History of Intelligence Assessment: The Unfinished Tapestry". In Flanagan, Dawn P.; Harrison, Patti L. (eds.). Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (Third ed.). New York (NY): Guilford Press. pp. 3–55, 14. ISBN 978-1-60918-995-2. In a passage that made direct reference to the work of Galton and Cattell, Binet and Henri (1895) rebutted the claim that greater experimental precision was possible in the measurement of simpler mental processes: [para] If one looks at the series of experiments made—the mental tests as the English say—one is astonished by the considerable place reserved to the sensations and the simple processes, and by the little attention lent to the superior processes....The objection will be made that the elementary processes can be determined with much more precision than the superior processes. This is certain, but people differ in these elementary ones much more feebly than in the complex ones; there is no need, therefore, for as precise a method for determining the latter as for the former....Anyway, it is only by applying one's self to this point that one can approach the study of individual differences. (Binet & Henri, 1895, pp. 426, 429; translated by Siegler, 1992, p. 181) {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2012). "Chapter 1: A History of Intelligence Assessment: The Unfinished Tapestry". In Flanagan, Dawn P.; Harrison, Patti L. (eds.). Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (Third ed.). New York (NY): Guilford Press. pp. 3–55, 20. ISBN 978-1-60918-995-2. Terman's Stanford-Binet was a resounding success, becoming the most frequently used psychological test (and intelligence test) in the United States for decades (Louttit & Browne, 1947). The Stanford-Binet would be renormed and expanded to create two parallel forms (Form L for Lewis, and Form M for coauthor Maud A. Merrill) spanning the ages 2 years through Superior Adult III in a remarkable 1937 revision (Terman & Merrill, 1937). The best items from the two forms would be retained in a single form for two updates (Terman & Merrill, 1960, 1973). From sales of test record forms, R. L. Thorndike (1975) estimated that the Stanford-Binet was administered to an average of about 150,000 persons a year from 1916 to 1937, to about 500,000 persons a year from 1937 to 1960, and to about 800,000 a year from 1960 to 1972. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2012). "Chapter 1: A History of Intelligence Assessment: The Unfinished Tapestry". In Flanagan, Dawn P.; Harrison, Patti L. (eds.). Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (Third ed.). New York (NY): Guilford Press. pp. 3–55, 34. ISBN 978-1-60918-995-2. It is Wechsler's (1939) definition, which built on his previous efforts and borrowed elements from his predecessors, that remains best known among definitions of intelligence: [para] Intelligence is the aggregate or global capacity of the individual to act purposefully, to think rationally and to deal effectively with his environment. It is global because it characterizes the individual's behavior as a whole; it is an aggregate because it is composed of elements or abilities which, though not entirely independent, are qualitatively differentiable. By measurement of these abilities, we ultimately evaluate intelligence. But intelligence is not identical with the mere sum of these abilities, however inclusive. (p.3) The long-standing popularity of this definition is probably due to the enduring popularity of the Wechsler intelligence scales with which it is associated. The definition reflects Wechsler's generally cautious writing style; it was exceptionally rare that he made any bold statement in writing that might alienate any colleagues. The phrase 'aggregate or global capacity' appears to encompass Spearman's general factor, g—but Wechslere included an accommodation for the group factors, which, 'though not entirely independent, are qualitatively differentiable.' According to Wechsler (Wechsler et al., 1975), this definition also subsumes Binet's emphasis on adaptation. The phrase 'to deal effectively with his environment' recapitulates Binet's (1911/1916) observation that 'Intelligence marks itself by the best possible adaptation of the individual to his environment' (p. 301), as well as the use of adaptation in the definition of intelligence by others. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2012). "Chapter 1: A History of Intelligence Assessment: The Unfinished Tapestry". In Flanagan, Dawn P.; Harrison, Patti L. (eds.). Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (Third ed.). New York (NY): Guilford Press. pp. 3–55, 34–35. ISBN 978-1-60918-995-2. The Bellevue Intelligence Scale was originally subsidized by a Works Progress Administration grant during the Great Depression (Wechsler, 1981; Wechsler et al., 1975). Wechsler (1939, p. 137) reported that the test took 7 years to develop, and it first underwent trials in 1937 and 1938 at the Bellevue Psychiatric Hospital, the Court of General Sessions of New York City, and the Queens General Hospital. The need for a new adult test stemmed largely from the inadequacy of the Stanford-Binet, particularly its poor normative sample for adults, and the poor fit of the Army mental tests for clinical decision making. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2012). "Chapter 1: A History of Intelligence Assessment: The Unfinished Tapestry". In Flanagan, Dawn P.; Harrison, Patti L. (eds.). Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (Third ed.). New York (NY): Guilford Press. pp. 3–55, 35. ISBN 978-1-60918-995-2. After careful review, Wechsler essentially cherry-picked his subtests from the most clinically useful and psychometrically adequate tests of his era; he thus provided practitioners with an easy transition to make from using many separate, independently normed tests with a variety of instructions and scoring rules to a single battery of co-normed tests, with streamlined administration and fairly uniform scoring rules. He acknowledged, 'Our aim was not to produce a set of brand new tests but to select, from whatever source available, such a combination of them as would best meet the requirements of an effective adult scale' (Wechsler, 1939, p. 78). {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2012). "Chapter 1: A History of Intelligence Assessment: The Unfinished Tapestry". In Flanagan, Dawn P.; Harrison, Patti L. (eds.). Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (Third ed.). New York (NY): Guilford Press. pp. 3–55, 35. ISBN 978-1-60918-995-2. The 1939 test battery (and all subsequent Wechsler intelligence scales) also offered a deviation IQ, the index of intelligence based on statistical distance from the normative mean in standardized units, as Arthur Otis (1917) had proposed. Wechsler deserves credit for popularizing the deviation IQ, although the Otis Self-Administering Tests and the Otis Group Intelligence Scale had already used similar deviation-based composite scores in the 1920s. Inexplicably, Terman and Merrill made the mistake of retaining a ratio IQ (i.e., mental age/chronological age) on the 1937 Stanford-Binet, even though the method had long been recognized as producing distorted IQ estimates for adolescents and adults (e.g., Otis, 1917). Terman and Merrill (1937, pp. 27-28) justified their decision on the dubiious ground that it would have been too difficult to reeducate teachers and other test users familiar with the ratio IQ. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2012). "Chapter 1: A History of Intelligence Assessment: The Unfinished Tapestry". In Flanagan, Dawn P.; Harrison, Patti L. (eds.). Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (Third ed.). New York (NY): Guilford Press. pp. 3–55, 36. ISBN 978-1-60918-995-2. In an update 6 years later, Rabin and Guertin (1951) noted the 'vast popularity and wide usage of the test' (p. 239) and a 'veritable flood' of research (p. 211), making the Wechsler-Bellevue 'a commonly used measuring rod for comparison and validation, if not actual calibration of newer and more recent techniques' (p. 239). {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2 October 2012). "Chapter 18: Assessment of Intellectual Functioning". In Weiner, Irving B.; Graham, John R.; Naglieri, Jack A. (eds.). Handbook of Psychology. Vol. Volume 10: Assessment Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. p. 451. ISBN 978-0-470-89127-8. Retrieved 25 November 2013. The study of intelligence and cognitive abilities dates back more than a century and has been characterized by some of the best and worst of aspects of science—the development of new methodologies, research breakthroughs, and vigorous scholarly debates as well as bitter rivalries, allegations of academic fraud, and the birth of a commercial testing industry that generates hundreds of million dollars in annual revenue. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2 October 2012). "Chapter 18: Assessment of Intellectual Functioning". In Weiner, Irving B.; Graham, John R.; Naglieri, Jack A. (eds.). Handbook of Psychology. Vol. Volume 10: Assessment Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. p. 451. ISBN 978-0-470-89127-8. Retrieved 25 November 2013. Seven major intelligence tests are presented in terms of their history, theoretical underpinnings, standardization features and psychometric adequacy, and interpretive indices and applications. These tests include the Cognitive Assessment System (CAS; Naglieri & Das, 1997a, 1997b), Differential Ability Scales (DAS-II; C. D. Elliott, 2007a, 2007b, 2007c), Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (KABC0II; Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004), Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales (RIAS; Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2003), Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales (SB5; Roid, 2003a, 2003b, 2003c), Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children and Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WISC-IV and WAIS-IV; Wechsler, 2003a, 2003b, 2008a, 2008b), and Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abilities (WJ III NU Cog; Woodcock, McGrew, & Mdather, 2001a, 2007a). {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2 October 2012). "Chapter 18: Assessment of Intellectual Functioning". In Weiner, Irving B.; Graham, John R.; Naglieri, Jack A. (eds.). Handbook of Psychology. Vol. Volume 10: Assessment Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. p. 452. ISBN 978-0-470-89127-8. Retrieved 25 November 2013. Some generalizations may be mentioned at the outset. First, it is apparent that contemporary intelligence measures are much more similar than different. While each instrument has some characteristic limitations, all of them are fairly adequate from a psychometric point of view. They all have satisfactory normative samples, and their composite scales tend to meet at least minimal standards of measurement precision. Second, while a few eschew Spearman's general factor of intelligence (psychometric g), most of them end up yielding good overall estimates of g. Third, while several different structural models are presented, there is considerable overlap in the constructs being tapped, epitomized by Kaufman and Kaufman's (2004) acknowledgment that their scales can be validly interpreted according to multiple theoretical perspectives, based on the user's theoretical inclinations. Finally, it is becoming increasingly clear that the traditional dichotomy between verbal and nonverbal intelligence overlaps with and is somewhat redundant with the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) crystallized and fluid ability dichotomy. It is no accident that tests of crystallized ability are overwhelmingly verbal while tests of fluid ability are consistently nonverbal and visual-spatial. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2 October 2012). "Chapter 18: Assessment of Intellectual Functioning". In Weiner, Irving B.; Graham, John R.; Naglieri, Jack A. (eds.). Handbook of Psychology. Vol. Volume 10: Assessment Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. p. 452. ISBN 978-0-470-89127-8. Retrieved 25 November 2013. The CAS has its theoretical underpinnings in Luria's (1970, 1973, 1980) three functional units in the brain: (1) the first unit regulates cortical tone and alertness and arousal (interpreted by the test authors as attention); (2) the second unit receives, processes, and retains information in two basic forms of integrative activity (simultaneous and successive); and (3) the third unit involves the formation, execution, and monitoring of behavioral planning. Luria (1966) credited Russian physiologist Ivan M. Sechenov with the concept of simultaneous and successive processing, which he introduced in this way: The first of these forms is the integration of the individual stimuli arriving in the brain into simultaneous, and primarily spatial, groups, and the second in the integration of individual stimuli arriving consecutively in the brain into temporally organized, successive series. We shall refer conventionally to these as simultaneous and successive syntheses. (p. 74; emphasis in the original) {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2 October 2012). "Chapter 18: Assessment of Intellectual Functioning". In Weiner, Irving B.; Graham, John R.; Naglieri, Jack A. (eds.). Handbook of Psychology. Vol. Volume 10: Assessment Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. p. 453. ISBN 978-0-470-89127-8. Retrieved 25 November 2013. CAS floors and ceilings tend to be adequate for school-age children. Test score floors extend 2 or more standard deviations (SDs) below the normative mean beginning with 6-year, 4-month-old children, so discrimination at the lowest processing levels is somewhat limited with 5-yeaar-olds, particularly for simultaneous subtests. Test score ceilings extend more than 2 SDs above the normative mean at all age levels. Standard scores range from about 45 to 153 for the PASS scales, with a range of 40 to 160 for the Full Scale IQ (FSIQ). {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2 October 2012). "Chapter 18: Assessment of Intellectual Functioning". In Weiner, Irving B.; Graham, John R.; Naglieri, Jack A. (eds.). Handbook of Psychology. Vol. Volume 10: Assessment Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 453–454. ISBN 978-0-470-89127-8. Retrieved 25 November 2013. Critics have asserted that CAS interpretive structure (i.e., the PASS framework) does not match its factor structure, and questions have emerged about what constructs that the PASS scales actually measure. On a data set based on the tryout version of the CAS, Carroll (1995) argued that the planning scale, in which all subtests are timed, may be best conceptualized as a measure of perceptual speed. Keith, Kranzler, and Flanagan challenged the CAS factor structure based on reanalyses of the standardization sample and analyses with new samples (Keith & Kranzler, 1999; Keith et al., 2001; Kranzler & Keith, 1999; Kranzler, Keith, & Flanagan, 2000). These investigations have generally reported that the planning and attention subtests lack the specificity and factorial coherence to be interpreted separately, that they are more appropriately collapsed into a single factor strongly related to speed, and that the simultaneous and successive factors may best be reconceptualized as tapping visualization and short-term memory span. In responding to these types of criticisms, Puhan, Das, and Naglieri (2005) offered other sources of validity evidence for the factor structure of the CAS. Haddad (2004) studied the relationship between speed and planning on the CAS Planned Codes subtest and concluded that the subtest is better described as a measure of planning than speed. More recently, Deng, Liu, We, Chan, and Das (2011) found that either a four-factor PASS model or a three-factor (PA)SS model fit the data well in a confirmatory factor analysis of the Chinese-language adaptation of CAS with a Chinese sample. After conducting hierarchical exploratory factor analyses, Canivez (2011b) and the test's complex structure may have distorted the CFA results of Kranzler and Keith (1999), leadinig them to overestimate planning and attention factor correlations. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2 October 2012). "Chapter 18: Assessment of Intellectual Functioning". In Weiner, Irving B.; Graham, John R.; Naglieri, Jack A. (eds.). Handbook of Psychology. Vol. Volume 10: Assessment Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. p. 454. ISBN 978-0-470-89127-8. Retrieved 25 November 2013. However, Canivez (2011b) concluded that most of the total and common CAS variance was indeed associated with a second-order g factor, and interpretation of CAS at this level is supported, even if few subtests are good g measures. Even so, he notes that CAS yielded greater proportions of subtest variance apportioned to first order factors (i.e., PASS, or [PA]SS) than most other intelligence tests although some factors (planning and successive) appeared to explain much more variance than the simultaneous factor. Canivez (2011b) concludes, 'Further research will help determine the extent to which CAS PASS scores possess acceptable incremental validity and diagnostic utility' (p. 314). {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2 October 2012). "Chapter 18: Assessment of Intellectual Functioning". In Weiner, Irving B.; Graham, John R.; Naglieri, Jack A. (eds.). Handbook of Psychology. Vol. Volume 10: Assessment Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. p. 454. ISBN 978-0-470-89127-8. Retrieved 25 November 2013. Evidence of convergent validity for the four individual PASS scales is not reported in the CAS Interpretive Handbook, and surprisingly neither the CAS nor the K-ABC or KABC-II have convergent validity studies with each other, in spite of their shared theoretical underpinnings. Some investigations suggest limitations in the validity of the PASS scales; for example, in separate investigations, the CAS Planning scale has been shown to yield low correlations with Tower of London performance (Naglieri & Das, 1997b; Ciotti, 2007), long considered a criterion measure of planning (e.g., Shallice, 1982). The CAS Planning scale also is not significantly correlated with parent and teacher reports of student planning and organizational ability (Ciotti, 2007). {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2 October 2012). "Chapter 18: Assessment of Intellectual Functioning". In Weiner, Irving B.; Graham, John R.; Naglieri, Jack A. (eds.). Handbook of Psychology. Vol. Volume 10: Assessment Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. p. 454. ISBN 978-0-470-89127-8. Retrieved 25 November 2013. CAS Full Scale standard scores also have high correlations with achievement test results. Based on a large sample (n = 1600) used as a basis for generating ability-achievement comparisons, the CAS Full Scale standard scores yield high correlations with broad reading and broad mathematics achievement (r = .70 to .72; see Naglieri & Das, 1997b). Correlations of the CAS with achievement test composites have been shown to be higher than those found for most other intelligence tests (Naglieri & Bornstein, 2003; Naglieri, DeLauder, Goldstein, & Schwebech, 2006; Naglieri & Rojahn, 2001). The comparatively high ability-achievement correlations may be interpreted as supporting a strong and possibly causal linkage between cognitive processes and the academic performances to which they may contribute. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2 October 2012). "Chapter 18: Assessment of Intellectual Functioning". In Weiner, Irving B.; Graham, John R.; Naglieri, Jack A. (eds.). Handbook of Psychology. Vol. Volume 10: Assessment Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. p. 454. ISBN 978-0-470-89127-8. Retrieved 25 November 2013. CAS is unique among tests of cognitive abilities and processes insofar as it has been studied with several research-based programs of intervention, specifically programs of cognitive instruction that are concerned with the interface between psychology and education, particularly the cognitive processes involveed in learning (e.g., Mayer, 1992). {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2 October 2012). "Chapter 18: Assessment of Intellectual Functioning". In Weiner, Irving B.; Graham, John R.; Naglieri, Jack A. (eds.). Handbook of Psychology. Vol. Volume 10: Assessment Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. p. 455. ISBN 978-0-470-89127-8. Retrieved 25 November 2013. Children diagnosed with the hyperactive-impulsive subtype of ADHD tend to characteristically have weaknesses in planning and attention scales (Paolitto, 1999), consistent with the newest theories reconceptualizing ADHD as a disorder of executive functions (Barkley, 1997). {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2 October 2012). "Chapter 18: Assessment of Intellectual Functioning". In Weiner, Irving B.; Graham, John R.; Naglieri, Jack A. (eds.). Handbook of Psychology. Vol. Volume 10: Assessment Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 455–456. ISBN 978-0-470-89127-8. Retrieved 25 November 2013. The CAS offers several progressive advances in intelligence testing. Its most important contribution is to include executive functions as a core element in the assessment of intelligence, a decision that preceded the inclusion of executive function subtests in the KABC-II (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004), WISC-III as a Process Instrument (WISC-III PI; Kaplan, Fein, Kramer, Delis, & Morris, 1999) and WISC-IV Integrated (Wechsler, Kaplan, Fein, Kramer, Morris, Delis, & Maerlender, 2004), and the WJ III Cog (Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001a). {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2 October 2012). "Chapter 18: Assessment of Intellectual Functioning". In Weiner, Irving B.; Graham, John R.; Naglieri, Jack A. (eds.). Handbook of Psychology. Vol. Volume 10: Assessment Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. p. 456. ISBN 978-0-470-89127-8. Retrieved 25 November 2013. The chief limitations of the CAS stem from its ambitious yet flawed operationalization of Luria's theory of the functional systems of the brain and a mismatch between its theoretical interpretive framework (PASS) and its structure according to factor analyses. Theoretical shortcomings include a misinterpretation of Luria's first functional unit as regulating higher-order attentional processes; his first functional unit is actually associated with limbic system activation (and inhibition) of generalized arousal and alertness: [para] The reticular activation formation, the most important part of the first functional unit of the brain, . . . affects all sensory and all motor [cortical] functions of the body equally, and . . . its function is merely that of regulating states of sleep and waking—the non-specific background against which different forms of activity take place. (Luria, 1973, p. 52) {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2 October 2012). "Chapter 18: Assessment of Intellectual Functioning". In Weiner, Irving B.; Graham, John R.; Naglieri, Jack A. (eds.). Handbook of Psychology. Vol. Volume 10: Assessment Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. p. 456. ISBN 978-0-470-89127-8. Retrieved 25 November 2013. A second theoretical limitation was first observed in Das's early work by Paivio (1976), who asserted that the successive-simultaneous processing distinction is confounded by verbal-nonverbal sensory modality assessment methodologies. In other words, successive tasks are predominantly verbal and simultaneous tasks are predominantly visual-spatial, making it difficult to demonstrate that the two cognitive processes transcend sensory modality as Luria believed. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2 October 2012). "Chapter 18: Assessment of Intellectual Functioning". In Weiner, Irving B.; Graham, John R.; Naglieri, Jack A. (eds.). Handbook of Psychology. Vol. Volume 10: Assessment Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. p. 456. ISBN 978-0-470-89127-8. Retrieved 25 November 2013. In an explicit acknowledgment that the Lurian dimensions may be readily reinterpreted from the CHC framework, Kaufman and Kaufman (2004) offered a dual theoretical perspective in which successive (sequential) and simultaneous processing may be just as easily viewed as memory span and broad visualization. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2 October 2012). "Chapter 18: Assessment of Intellectual Functioning". In Weiner, Irving B.; Graham, John R.; Naglieri, Jack A. (eds.). Handbook of Psychology. Vol. Volume 10: Assessment Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. p. 457. ISBN 978-0-470-89127-8. Retrieved 25 November 2013. The DAS-II is a U.S. adaptation, revision, and extension of the British Ability Scales (BAS; C. D. Elliott, Murray, & Pearson, 1979). Development of the BAS originally began in 1965, with plans to develop a test to measure Thurstone's (1938) seven primary mental abilities and key dimensions from Piagetian theory. Colin D. Elliott, a teacher, university faculty, and school psychologist trainer, became the director of the project in 1973. Elliott spearheaded decisions to deemphasize IQ estimation and to provide a profile of meaningful and distinct abilities as well as to support the introduction of item response theory in psychometric analyses. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2 October 2012). "Chapter 18: Assessment of Intellectual Functioning". In Weiner, Irving B.; Graham, John R.; Naglieri, Jack A. (eds.). Handbook of Psychology. Vol. Volume 10: Assessment Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. p. 457. ISBN 978-0-470-89127-8. Retrieved 25 November 2013. The DAS-II was developed to accommodate diverse theoretical perspectives, but it now aligns most closely with the CHC framework. It is designed to yield an estimate of higher order general intelligence, the General Conceptual Ability (GCA) score, and lower order broad cognitive factors or diagnostic clusters: Verbal Ability (Gc), Nonverbal Reasoning Ability (Gf), Spatial Ability (Gv), Working Memory (Gsm), and Processing Speed (Gs). The DAS avoids use of the terms intelligence and IQ, focusing instead on profiles of cognitive abilities and processes that are either strongly related to the general factor or thought to have value for diagnostic purposes. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2 October 2012). "Chapter 18: Assessment of Intellectual Functioning". In Weiner, Irving B.; Graham, John R.; Naglieri, Jack A. (eds.). Handbook of Psychology. Vol. Volume 10: Assessment Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. p. 457. ISBN 978-0-470-89127-8. Retrieved 25 November 2013. The GCA captures test performance on subtests that have high g loadings, in contrast to some intelligence tests in which all subtests (high and low g loading) contribute to the overall IQ composite. Through this approach, it also avoids the problems found on the Wechsler scales in which circumscribed processing deficits (such as low processing speed) depress overall ability estimates. Confirmatory factor analyses reported in the Introductory and Technical Handbook (C. D. Elliott, 2007b) show the g loadings of core subtests (i.e., those that contribute to the GCA) to range from .66 to .76 for ages 6:0 to 12:11 and from .65 to .78 for ages 6:0 to 17:11. By Kaufman's (1994) criteria, half of the DAS-II subtests are good measures of general intelligence and the remaining core subtests are fair measures of general intelligence. As expected, the diagnostic subtests do not fare as well as measures of g. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2 October 2012). "Chapter 18: Assessment of Intellectual Functioning". In Weiner, Irving B.; Graham, John R.; Naglieri, Jack A. (eds.). Handbook of Psychology. Vol. Volume 10: Assessment Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 457–458. ISBN 978-0-470-89127-8. Retrieved 25 November 2013. The standardization edition was normed on a representative U.S. sample of 3,480 children and adolescents, between ages 2:6 and 17:11. Using 2002 Current Population Survey census figures, the normative sample was stratified on the basis of race/ethnicity, parent education level, and geographic region. The sample was balanced by age and sex. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2 October 2012). "Chapter 18: Assessment of Intellectual Functioning". In Weiner, Irving B.; Graham, John R.; Naglieri, Jack A. (eds.). Handbook of Psychology. Vol. Volume 10: Assessment Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. p. 458. ISBN 978-0-470-89127-8. Retrieved 25 November 2013. The standardization sample inclusion criteria required English as the primary language of the examinee; prospective examinees were excluded (or referred to special population studies) when they had received diagnoses or services for any delay in cognitive, motor, language, social-emotional, or adaptive functioning. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2 October 2012). "Chapter 18: Assessment of Intellectual Functioning". In Weiner, Irving B.; Graham, John R.; Naglieri, Jack A. (eds.). Handbook of Psychology. Vol. Volume 10: Assessment Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. p. 458. ISBN 978-0-470-89127-8. Retrieved 25 November 2013. DAS-II subtests are administered in predetermined item sets rather than with formal basal and discontinue rules. This means that starting points and stopping decision points (as well as alternative stopping points) are designated on the Record Form according to the child's age or ability level. Within any given item set, at least three items passed and at least three items failed provide support that the appropriate item set was administered. If an examinee passes fewer than three items, a lower item set should be administered; if an examinee fails fewer than three items, a higher item set should be administered. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2 October 2012). "Chapter 18: Assessment of Intellectual Functioning". In Weiner, Irving B.; Graham, John R.; Naglieri, Jack A. (eds.). Handbook of Psychology. Vol. Volume 10: Assessment Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. p. 459. ISBN 978-0-470-89127-8. Retrieved 25 November 2013. The DAS-II composites and clusters scores have considerable range, extending 9 standard deviations (SD) from low standard scores of about 32 (-4.5 SD) to ceiling scores of 169 or 170 (+4.6 SD). DAS-II subtest floors are sufficiently low so that its T scores extend 2 SD below the normative mean with 2½-year-old children with developmental delays. Use of Rasch scaling extrapolation also permits GCA and other composite norms to be extended downward, to standard scores as low as 32, enhanceing the discriminability of the DAS-II with individuals with moderate to severe impairment including intellectual disability. DAS-II subtest ceilings are sufficiently high that they extend +4 SD above the normative mean for all but a single subtest (Sequential and Quantitative Reasoning, which extends +3.1 SD) at the highest age range served by the DAS-II. Composite and cluster score ceilings consistently extend as high as 169 or 170, to support the identification of highly gifted individuals. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2 October 2012). "Chapter 18: Assessment of Intellectual Functioning". In Weiner, Irving B.; Graham, John R.; Naglieri, Jack A. (eds.). Handbook of Psychology. Vol. Volume 10: Assessment Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. p. 460. ISBN 978-0-470-89127-8. Retrieved 25 November 2013. The DAS-II is widely considered to be a psychometrically superlative test battery ranking among the best preschool and school-age cognitive test batteries available. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2 October 2012). "Chapter 18: Assessment of Intellectual Functioning". In Weiner, Irving B.; Graham, John R.; Naglieri, Jack A. (eds.). Handbook of Psychology. Vol. Volume 10: Assessment Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. p. 460. ISBN 978-0-470-89127-8. Retrieved 25 November 2013. In total, it ranks among the best intelligence tests of this era. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2 October 2012). "Chapter 18: Assessment of Intellectual Functioning". In Weiner, Irving B.; Graham, John R.; Naglieri, Jack A. (eds.). Handbook of Psychology. Vol. Volume 10: Assessment Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. p. 460. ISBN 978-0-470-89127-8. Retrieved 25 November 2013. Hill (2005) explained the continued preference of British assessment practitioners for the Wechsler scales over the BAS-II: [para] Many psychologists feel that more contemporary psychometric assessments, for example, the BAS-II, lack either the history or the extensive research profile of the Wechsler scales. In a litigious context it appears that some psychologists feel the Wechsler scales provide greater professional security. (p. 89) [para] The same sentiment may explain preference of American assessment practitioners for the Wechsler scales over the DAS-II (e.g., Camara, Nathan, & Puente, 2000), in spite of its technical excellence. With its assets noted, research is sorely needed to systematically link DAS-II cognitive ability profiles with academic and nonacademic interventions for children and adolescents. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2 October 2012). "Chapter 18: Assessment of Intellectual Functioning". In Weiner, Irving B.; Graham, John R.; Naglieri, Jack A. (eds.). Handbook of Psychology. Vol. Volume 10: Assessment Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. p. 461. ISBN 978-0-470-89127-8. Retrieved 25 November 2013. When Alan S. Kaufman's book, Intelligent Testing with the WISC-R, was published in 1979, he became the leading authority after David Wechsler himself on the Wechsler intelligence scales, the most dominant tests of our era. laysummary= {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2 October 2012). "Chapter 18: Assessment of Intellectual Functioning". In Weiner, Irving B.; Graham, John R.; Naglieri, Jack A. (eds.). Handbook of Psychology. Vol. Volume 10: Assessment Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. p. 461. ISBN 978-0-470-89127-8. Retrieved 25 November 2013. Kaufman and his wife, Nadeen, released the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC; Kaufman & Kaufman, 1983a, 1983b) just four years later, and it constituted the boldest challenge yet encountered by the Wechsler scales. These landmark works have gone through successive editions, along with many other accomplishments, making Alan Kaufman the leading influence on the practice of applied intelligence testing in the last 30 years. In the words of his students Randy W. Kamphaus and Cecil R. Reynolds (2009), Kaufman's contribution having the greatest long-term impact was his 'joining of the two disciplines of measurement science and clinical assessment practice' (p. 148). {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2 October 2012). "Chapter 18: Assessment of Intellectual Functioning". In Weiner, Irving B.; Graham, John R.; Naglieri, Jack A. (eds.). Handbook of Psychology. Vol. Volume 10: Assessment Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. p. 461. ISBN 978-0-470-89127-8. Retrieved 25 November 2013. At the University of Georgia, Alan and Nadeen worked with a gifted group of graduate students on the K-ABC. Among their students were Bruce Bracken, Jack Cummings, Patti Harrison, Randy Kamphaus, Jack Naglieri, and Cecil Reynolds, all influential school psychologists and test authors. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2 October 2012). "Chapter 18: Assessment of Intellectual Functioning". In Weiner, Irving B.; Graham, John R.; Naglieri, Jack A. (eds.). Handbook of Psychology. Vol. Volume 10: Assessment Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. p. 462. ISBN 978-0-470-89127-8. Retrieved 25 November 2013. The CHC model should generally be the model of choice, except in cases where the examiner believes that including measures of acquired knowledge/crystallized ability would compromise the validity of the FCI. In those cases, the Luria-based global score (MPI) is preferred. The CHC model is given priority over the Luria model because the authors believe that Knowledge/Gc is, in principle, an important aspect of cognitive functioning (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004). {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2 October 2012). "Chapter 18: Assessment of Intellectual Functioning". In Weiner, Irving B.; Graham, John R.; Naglieri, Jack A. (eds.). Handbook of Psychology. Vol. Volume 10: Assessment Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. p. 464. ISBN 978-0-470-89127-8. Retrieved 25 November 2013. The K-ABC was introduced in 1983 with genuine innovations, including a theory-driven model of cognitive processing, careful minimization of acquired knowledge requirements, demonstration of reduced racial and ethnic group mean score differences, and conceptual links of assessment to intervention. Its subtests appeared qualitatively different from Wechsler and Binet-style procedures, it permitted examinees to be taught the task to ensure that no children do poorly because they did not understand what to do, and its easel-based test administration format quickly became the industry standard. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2 October 2012). "Chapter 18: Assessment of Intellectual Functioning". In Weiner, Irving B.; Graham, John R.; Naglieri, Jack A. (eds.). Handbook of Psychology. Vol. Volume 10: Assessment Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. p. 464. ISBN 978-0-470-89127-8. Retrieved 25 November 2013. After the promotional efforts subsided, Kline, Snyder, and Castellanos (1996) drew some sobering lessons from the K-ABC, including (a) the need to analyze the processing demands in all tasks and scoring systems; (b) the need to critically examine test interpretive practices (i.e., subtest profile analysis) that have dubious validity; (c) the problematic position that IQ scores reflect ability (independent from achievement ) even while touting unusually high correlations with achievement; and (d) the failure of efforts to match instruction to learning profiles in K-ABC's remedial model. At the very least, the advances in assessment practice made by the K-ABC may have been overshadowed by its failure to deliver on its initial promise. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2 October 2012). "Chapter 18: Assessment of Intellectual Functioning". In Weiner, Irving B.; Graham, John R.; Naglieri, Jack A. (eds.). Handbook of Psychology. Vol. Volume 10: Assessment Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. p. 464. ISBN 978-0-470-89127-8. Retrieved 25 November 2013. The KABC-II appears to continue the advances of its predecessor edition and substantively address some limitations. Its administration remains examinee friendly and clinically flexible. It is conormed with a well-developed achievement test, the KTEA-II. Its dual theoretical model represents an unusual compromise between two opposing theoretical perspectives (CHC and Lurian) without doing damage to either. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2 October 2012). "Chapter 18: Assessment of Intellectual Functioning". In Weiner, Irving B.; Graham, John R.; Naglieri, Jack A. (eds.). Handbook of Psychology. Vol. Volume 10: Assessment Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. p. 465. ISBN 978-0-470-89127-8. Retrieved 25 November 2013. The RIAS was developed to provide efficient measurement in terms of time, cost, and yield. It emphasizes the general intelligence factor, g, as the most reliable factor in intelligence, measured on the RIAS with the CIX score. Drawing on the CHC framework, it also taps crystallized and fluid intelligence through its VIX and NIX scores, respectively. Reynolds and Kamphaus (2003) explained: 'From our research, we have concluded that a strong measure of g, coupled with strong measures of verbal and nonverbal intelligence, account for nearly all of the reliable and interpretable variance in the subtests of good intelligence measures. Others have reached similar conclusions' (p. 10). {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2 October 2012). "Chapter 18: Assessment of Intellectual Functioning". In Weiner, Irving B.; Graham, John R.; Naglieri, Jack A. (eds.). Handbook of Psychology. Vol. Volume 10: Assessment Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. p. 465. ISBN 978-0-470-89127-8. Retrieved 25 November 2013. Bracken (2005) concluded that the verbal subtests are the only consistently good measures of general intelligence. In an independent investigation, hierarchical exploratory factor analyses with the Schmid-Leiman procedure yielded fair g-loadings for the four core subtests across nearly all age ranges (Dombrowski et al., 2009). {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2 October 2012). "Chapter 18: Assessment of Intellectual Functioning". In Weiner, Irving B.; Graham, John R.; Naglieri, Jack A. (eds.). Handbook of Psychology. Vol. Volume 10: Assessment Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. p. 465. ISBN 978-0-470-89127-8. Retrieved 25 November 2013. Support for the RIAS verbal/nonverbal two-factor structure shows evidence of weakness. Exploratory factor analyses with principal factors of the four subtest core battery supports labeling the Guess What and Verbal Reasoning subtests as verbal (with factor pattern coefficients consistently greater than .65 across ages), but the Odd-Item Out subtest yields not-insubstantial loadings on the same factor from .30 to .50. A second factor is defined by factor pattern coefficients ranging from .53 to .67 on Odd-Item Out and What's Missing. However, the verbal subtests also show significant loading on this factor (.32 to .50). Nelson, Canivez, Lindstrom, and Hatt (2007) found from an independent sample that hierarchical exploratory factor analysis supported only the extraction of a general intelligence factor, accounting for the largest amount of subtest, total, and common variance. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2 October 2012). "Chapter 18: Assessment of Intellectual Functioning". In Weiner, Irving B.; Graham, John R.; Naglieri, Jack A. (eds.). Handbook of Psychology. Vol. Volume 10: Assessment Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. p. 466. ISBN 978-0-470-89127-8. Retrieved 25 November 2013. In terms of floors and ceilings, the four RIAS intelligence subtests tend to have limited floors, good ceilings, and some gaps in score gradients. For preschool and school-age children, the subtests consistently extend at least two SDs below the normative mean of 50 T, down to 30 T, but there are some concerns with T score difficulty gradients. For example, answering two items on Verbal Reasoning at age 3 is enough to change resulting subtest scores by 12 T points, more than 1 SD. Across all school ages, the four intelligence subtest ceilings extend to just abouve +2 SD (e.g., What's Missing ceiling at age 17 is 71 T; Odd-Item Out ceiling is 73 T). For ages 7 to 8 years, when students are commonly selected for gifted and talented programs, RIAS subtest ceilings extend about 3 to 4 SDs above the normative mean, a ceiling that is certainly high enough to identify cognitively advanced students. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2 October 2012). "Chapter 18: Assessment of Intellectual Functioning". In Weiner, Irving B.; Graham, John R.; Naglieri, Jack A. (eds.). Handbook of Psychology. Vol. Volume 10: Assessment Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. p. 466. ISBN 978-0-470-89127-8. Retrieved 25 November 2013. There are several isolated reports that RIAS yields significantly higher scores than the WISC-IV and WJ III Cog (Edwards & Paulin, 2007; Krach et al., 2009), although a validity study reported in the RIAS Professional Manual show that WISC-III yielded a significantly higher FSIQ than the RIAS CIX. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2 October 2012). "Chapter 18: Assessment of Intellectual Functioning". In Weiner, Irving B.; Graham, John R.; Naglieri, Jack A. (eds.). Handbook of Psychology. Vol. Volume 10: Assessment Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. p. 467. ISBN 978-0-470-89127-8. Retrieved 25 November 2013. The RIAS, however, has limitations in at least two major aspects of its validity: the degree to which its subtests all measure general intelligence and the difficulty supporting its two-factor verbal/nonverbal structure. While J. M. Nelson and his colleagues (2007) found that general intelligence accounted for a large amount of test variance, Bracken (2005) noted that the majority of RIAS subtests have loadings on the g factor that are considered fair or poor. The equivocal support for the factorial extraction of two factors (e.g., Dombrowski et al., 2009) is further complicated by Bracken's (2005) observation that the NIX has correlations as high or higher with the Wechsler verbal subtests as with the Wechsler nonverbal/performance subtests. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2 October 2012). "Chapter 18: Assessment of Intellectual Functioning". In Weiner, Irving B.; Graham, John R.; Naglieri, Jack A. (eds.). Handbook of Psychology. Vol. Volume 10: Assessment Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. p. 467. ISBN 978-0-470-89127-8. Retrieved 25 November 2013. The oldest of intelligence tests is the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, now in its fifth edition (SB5; Roid, 2003a, 2003b, 2003c). The Stanford-Binet has a distinguished lineage, having been the only one of several adaptations of Binet's 1911 scales to survive to the present time. According to Théodore Simon (cited by Wolf, 1973, p. 35), Binet gave Lewis M. Terman at Stanford University the rights to publish an American revision of the Binet-Simon scale 'for a token of one dollar.' Terman (1877-1956) may arguably be considered the single person most responsible for spawning the testing industry that dominates contemporary intelligence and educational testing. The editions of the Stanford-Binet created by Terman (1916; Terman & Merrill, 1937) remain remarkable technical innovations even today. For example, the first executive function measure explicitly intended to measure planning and organization was Terman's Ball-and-field test (Terman, 1916; see also Littman, 2004), eight decades before Naglieri and Das (1997a, 1997b) reintroduced executive functions to intelligence assessment. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2 October 2012). "Chapter 18: Assessment of Intellectual Functioning". In Weiner, Irving B.; Graham, John R.; Naglieri, Jack A. (eds.). Handbook of Psychology. Vol. Volume 10: Assessment Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. p. 468. ISBN 978-0-470-89127-8. Retrieved 25 November 2013. A SB5 test session begins with administration of a nonverbal routing subtest (Nonverbal Fluid Reasoning) and a verbal routing subtest (Verbal Knowledge). Scores on these two subtests each provide guidance specifying which level to begin testing in the nonverbal and verbal batteries. In this manner, the SB5 lends itself to adaptive, tailored testing. It is also possible to use the routing tests as a short form, generating an Abbreviated IQ (ABIQ). The five nonverbal battery subtests are typically completed first, followed by the five verbal bettery subtests, with a basal and ceiling ultimately completed for each subtest. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2 October 2012). "Chapter 18: Assessment of Intellectual Functioning". In Weiner, Irving B.; Graham, John R.; Naglieri, Jack A. (eds.). Handbook of Psychology. Vol. Volume 10: Assessment Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. p. 468. ISBN 978-0-470-89127-8. Retrieved 25 November 2013. The fourth edition of the Stanford-Binet, published in 1986, was the first intelligence test to adopt Cattell and Horn's fluid-crystallized model of cognitive abilities, with a hierarchical organization in which psychometric g was at the apex, and four broad group factors—crystallized ability, fluid-analytic ability, quantitative reasoning, and short-term memory—were at the second, subordinate level. The SB5 represents an ambitious effort to integrate the CHC model with the traditional verbal-nonverbal dichotomy by measuring each of five CHC factors (termed Fluid Reasoning, Knowledge, Quantitative Reasoning, Visual-Spatial Processing, and Working Memory, corresponding respectively to Gf, Ge, Gq, Gv, and Gsm) with separate verbal and nonverbal subtests. The SB5 deivates from the CHC approach through its inclusion of Quantitative Reasoning as a cognitive factor and its attempt to provide separate verbal and nonverbal measures of each CHC broad factor. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2 October 2012). "Chapter 18: Assessment of Intellectual Functioning". In Weiner, Irving B.; Graham, John R.; Naglieri, Jack A. (eds.). Handbook of Psychology. Vol. Volume 10: Assessment Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. p. 468. ISBN 978-0-470-89127-8. Retrieved 25 November 2013. Factor analyses of SB5 subtests provide strong support for interpretation of the general intelligence factor but little support for the five-factor structure and for the division of tasks into verbal and nonverbal modalities (e.g., Canivez, 2008; DiStefano & Dombrowski, 2006; Ward, Rothlisberg, McIntosh, & Bradley, 2011; Williams, McIntosh, Dixon, Newton, & Youman, 2010). {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2 October 2012). "Chapter 18: Assessment of Intellectual Functioning". In Weiner, Irving B.; Graham, John R.; Naglieri, Jack A. (eds.). Handbook of Psychology. Vol. Volume 10: Assessment Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. p. 468. ISBN 978-0-470-89127-8. Retrieved 25 November 2013. Moreover, the correlations between the VIQ and NVIQ in the entire standardization sample is unusually high (r=.85), providing further evidence that the verbal and nonverbal scales are not distinct. As a result, the SB5 theoretical and interpretive structure cannot be said to match its factor structure. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2 October 2012). "Chapter 18: Assessment of Intellectual Functioning". In Weiner, Irving B.; Graham, John R.; Naglieri, Jack A. (eds.). Handbook of Psychology. Vol. Volume 10: Assessment Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. p. 469. ISBN 978-0-470-89127-8. Retrieved 25 November 2013. There is, however, anecdotal evidence that examinees from a highly gifted special population study were added to the normative sample, with an unknown impact on mean scores (Andrew Carson, personal communication, March 9, 2010). {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2 October 2012). "Chapter 18: Assessment of Intellectual Functioning". In Weiner, Irving B.; Graham, John R.; Naglieri, Jack A. (eds.). Handbook of Psychology. Vol. Volume 10: Assessment Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. p. 469. ISBN 978-0-470-89127-8. Retrieved 25 November 2013. Stanford-Binet subtest floors begin to look adequate for the assessment of potentially disordered children by about ages 4 or 5 years. For 2-year-olds, subtest floors extend from -1.33 to -2.67 SD below the normative mean, based on the lowest scores corresponding to a raw score of 1. It is not until age 4 years, 4 months that norms for every subtest extend at least 2 SDs below the general population mean, to the range associated with developmental disabilities. Based on earning the lowest possible nonzero raw score on every subtest, however, composite test score floors extend down to a Full Scale IQ of 74 at age 2, fully adequate for assessing children with various impairments. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2 October 2012). "Chapter 18: Assessment of Intellectual Functioning". In Weiner, Irving B.; Graham, John R.; Naglieri, Jack A. (eds.). Handbook of Psychology. Vol. Volume 10: Assessment Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. p. 469. ISBN 978-0-470-89127-8. Retrieved 25 November 2013. Stanford-Binet subtest ceiling scores consistently extend to scales scores of 19 (+3 SD) for perfect scores for all subtests at all ages, yielding a Full Scale IQ of 160 if every item is successfully answered on the test. Roid (2003b) also offered an experimental alternative to the Full Scale IQ, called an Extended IQ (EXIQ), that is capable of describing more extreme scores extending up through 225. There is, however, no research as yet on this experimental index. Ceiling content may also be reason to be concerned with SB5 ceilings. For example, the Nonverbal Knowledge subtest has two items dependent on a narrow knowledge of geography at its highest level. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2 October 2012). "Chapter 18: Assessment of Intellectual Functioning". In Weiner, Irving B.; Graham, John R.; Naglieri, Jack A. (eds.). Handbook of Psychology. Vol. Volume 10: Assessment Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. p. 470. ISBN 978-0-470-89127-8. Retrieved 25 November 2013. Canivez (2008) conducted a hierarchical exploratory factor analysis of the SB5 standardiztion sample and found that large portions of total and common variance were accounted for by second-order, general intelligence, with no evidence for a five-factor (Fluid Reasoning, Knowledge, Quantitative Reasoning, Visual-Spatial Processing, and Working Memory) or two-factor (verbal/nonverbal) solution at any level: [blockquote] On balance, it appears that the SB-5 is a strong measure of general intelligence in children and adolescents, but little empirical evidence for additional factors was found. As such, clinicians would be wise to concentrate their interpretation on the overall global IQ score from the SB-5, even with the youngest age groups. (Canivez, 2008, pp. 539-540) {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2 October 2012). "Chapter 18: Assessment of Intellectual Functioning". In Weiner, Irving B.; Graham, John R.; Naglieri, Jack A. (eds.). Handbook of Psychology. Vol. Volume 10: Assessment Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. p. 471. ISBN 978-0-470-89127-8. Retrieved 25 November 2013. Several additional SB5 scores may be of value. The change-sensitive scores (CSS) are Rasch-derived scores that measure performance on a developmental yardstick. Ironically, there is no evidence that change-sensitive scores are actually sensitive to the effects of cognitive, educational, or therapeutic interventions. Other scores, such as the EXIQ score that promises to raise composite IQ scores, should be considered experimental at this time. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2 October 2012). "Chapter 18: Assessment of Intellectual Functioning". In Weiner, Irving B.; Graham, John R.; Naglieri, Jack A. (eds.). Handbook of Psychology. Vol. Volume 10: Assessment Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. p. 471. ISBN 978-0-470-89127-8. Retrieved 25 November 2013. If the interpretive structure of the SB5 lacks validity, as research seems to suggest, than it is invalid to interpret any indices but the FSIQ in clinical and educational decision making. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2 October 2012). "Chapter 18: Assessment of Intellectual Functioning". In Weiner, Irving B.; Graham, John R.; Naglieri, Jack A. (eds.). Handbook of Psychology. Vol. Volume 10: Assessment Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. p. 471. ISBN 978-0-470-89127-8. Retrieved 25 November 2013. No brand name in psychology is better known than Wechsler, now applied to a series of intelligence scales spanning the ages 2½ through 90 years, an adult memory scale covering ages 16 through 90 years, and an achievement test covering ages 4 through 50 years as well as several ancillary tests. The remarkable success of the Wechsler measures is attributable to David Wechsler (1896-1981), a pioneering clinician and psychometrician with a well-developed sense of what was practical and clinically relevant. Decades after Wechsler's death, his tests continue to dominate intellectual assessment among psychologists (Camara et al., 2000). {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2 October 2012). "Chapter 18: Assessment of Intellectual Functioning". In Weiner, Irving B.; Graham, John R.; Naglieri, Jack A. (eds.). Handbook of Psychology. Vol. Volume 10: Assessment Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. p. 471. ISBN 978-0-470-89127-8. Retrieved 25 November 2013. Wechsler's role in the history of intelligence assessment is beginning to be critically assessed (e.g., Wasserman, 2012), but the origins of his subtests can be readily traced to testing procedures developed from the 1880s through the 1930s (e.g., Boake, 2002). Wechsler was introduced to most of the procedures that would eventually find a home in his intelligence and memory scales as a graduate student at Columbia University (with faculty including J. McKeen Cattell, Edward L. Thorndike, and Robert S. Woodworth) and as an army mental examiner in World War I. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2 October 2012). "Chapter 18: Assessment of Intellectual Functioning". In Weiner, Irving B.; Graham, John R.; Naglieri, Jack A. (eds.). Handbook of Psychology. Vol. Volume 10: Assessment Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. p. 471. ISBN 978-0-470-89127-8. Retrieved 25 November 2013. Matarazzo (1981) related that Wechsler realized the value of individual intelligence assessment after seeing recruits who functioned quite adequately in civilian life in spite of subnormal results on the group-administered tests. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2 October 2012). "Chapter 18: Assessment of Intellectual Functioning". In Weiner, Irving B.; Graham, John R.; Naglieri, Jack A. (eds.). Handbook of Psychology. Vol. Volume 10: Assessment Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. p. 472. ISBN 978-0-470-89127-8. Retrieved 25 November 2013. By virtue of his education and training, Wechsler should properly be remembered as one of the first scientist-clinicians in psychology. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2 October 2012). "Chapter 18: Assessment of Intellectual Functioning". In Weiner, Irving B.; Graham, John R.; Naglieri, Jack A. (eds.). Handbook of Psychology. Vol. Volume 10: Assessment Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. p. 472. ISBN 978-0-470-89127-8. Retrieved 25 November 2013. The Wechsler intelligence scales are decidedly atheoretical, beyond their emphasis on psychometric g, and in recent years they have appeared to be a test in search of a theory. As originally conceptualized by David Wechsler (1939), they were clearly intended to tap Spearman's general intelligence factor, g: 'The only thing we can ask of an intelligence scale is that it measures sufficient portions of intelligence to enable us to use it as a fairly reliable index of the individual's global capacity' (p. 11). {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2 October 2012). "Chapter 18: Assessment of Intellectual Functioning". In Weiner, Irving B.; Graham, John R.; Naglieri, Jack A. (eds.). Handbook of Psychology. Vol. Volume 10: Assessment Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. p. 472. ISBN 978-0-470-89127-8. Retrieved 25 November 2013. Wechsler's intelligence scales sought to capitalized on the established preferences of practitioners to administer both verbal and performance tests as part of a comprehensive assessment, and by packaging both sets of measurements in a single test battery, he was able to meet the needs of applied psychologists. It was not his intent to treat verbal and performance IQ as independent dimensions of intelligence: [blockquate] It was not until the publication of the Bellevue Scales that any consistent attempt was made to integrate performance and verbal tests into a single global rating, but because they enable the examiner to obtain separate verbal and performance I.Q.'s with one test. (Wechsler, 1950, p. 80) {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Wasserman, John D. (2 October 2012). "Chapter 18: Assessment of Intellectual Functioning". In Weiner, Irving B.; Graham, John R.; Naglieri, Jack A. (eds.). Handbook of Psychology. Vol. Volume 10: Assessment Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. p. 473. ISBN 978-0-470-89127-8. Retrieved 25 November 2013. The Wechsler scales are renowned for their rigorous standardizations, with new editions being released about every 10 to 15 years. The Wechsler scales tend to utilize a demographically stratified (and quasi-random) sampling approach, collecting a sample at most age levels of about n = 200 usually divided equally by sex. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

#invoke:citation/CS1

#invoke:citation/CS1

#invoke:citation/CS1

#invoke:citation/CS1

#invoke:citation/CS1

#invoke:citation/CS1

Template:Cite book

Template:Cite book

Template:Cite book

Template:Cite book

Template:Cite book

Template:Cite book

Template:Cite book

Template:Cite book

Template:Cite book

Template:Cite book

Template:Cite book

Template:Cite book

Template:Cite book

Template:Cite book

Template:Cite book

Template:Cite book

Template:Cite book

Template:Cite book

Template:Cite book

Template:Cite book

Template:Cite book

Template:Cite book

Template:Cite book

Template:Cite book

Template:Cite book

Template:Cite book

Template:Cite book

Template:Cite book

Template:Cite book

Template:Cite book

Template:Cite book

Template:Cite book

Template:Cite book

Template:Cite book

Template:Cite book

Template:Cite book

Template:Cite book

Template:Cite book

Template:Cite book

Template:Cite book

Template:Cite book

Template:Cite book

Template:Cite book

Template:Cite book

Template:Cite book

Template:Cite book

Template:Cite book