Issues with Assessing Intelligence

I have always found intelligence to be an interesting subject to learn about and in particular my own intelligence.  It is often used to describe how book smart a person is or how high they scored on an exam or IQ test.  Too often I believe that the focus is put in these areas and we lose sight of what else intelligence really means to an individual.  Another aspect we forget about is the effect that a person's genetics, lifestyle, environment and other factors influence their intelligence.  Over time I have had the opportunity to do a lot of exploring in regards to my intelligence and I think that has changed the way I view others in terms of it.  During high school, I had the chance to take a few different viewpoints on intelligence and then describe who I am in relation to its variables.  In particular one theory we looked in to was that of Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences.  I remember this so clearly because it was the first time I thought of intelligence as something other than being book smart.  There are different realms of smart and each individual has their own strengths and weaknesses.  This theory and concept has always stuck with me for that reason.  It allowed each person to have their own type of intelligence. 

As I was reading this week, I noticed the theme of problems in defining and assessing intelligence come up throughout each of the articles and chapter in Drummond and Jones (2010).  Although there are researchers and people who have been exploring this field for years and years, there is still no solid confirmation on how we can define this construct.  Yet even without this confirmation, schools, teachers and parents are looking to find answers amongst intelligence tests which seem to be very one dimensional in their assessment.  Some issues that have arose throughout time are: whether intelligence is hereditary or environmental, whether intelligence is different/how different over cultures, how stable a person's intelligence stays during their lifetime and the differences between IQs discovered today and found in a past generation (Drummond and Jones, 2010).  Due to these numerous dilemmas it is no wonder that there is a struggle to find common ground.  Neisser et. al (1996) just begin to describe all the loads of variables that may influence a person's intelligence if we have at first even defined it.  A person's genes, environmental factors (occupation, education, culture, previous interventions, family life), biological factors (nutrition, chemical or drug use), and individual life experiences (Neisser et. al, 1996).  The mound of information seems to be a difficult place to even start.  How as school counselors are we going to be able to use what we do know to the best of our ability and apply it successfully in our schools? 

"A theory of intelligence is useful to educators and school counselors only if it leads to a better understanding of how children learn or if it assists in predicting future performance" (Esters and Ittenbach, p. 373, 1999).  Esters and Ittenbach's (1999) article began to give me an idea of what I can be doing to benefit my school.  The more that we can learn about the idea of intelligence and all of its theories surrounding it the better suited we will be to take IQ scores and other forms of intelligence for what they are.  The tests can provide valuable information but we must know their structure and limitations as well.  Gaining this background knowledge will allow us to make more informed decisions within a school incorporating all variables of the construct of intelligence that may be at play.

Drummond, R. J. and Jones, K. (2010). Assessment Procedures for Counselors and Helping Professionals. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.

Esters, I. & Ittenbach, R. (1999). Contemporary theories and assessments of intelligence: A primer. Professional School Counseling, 2(5), 373-9.

Neisser, U. , Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T.J., Boykin, A. W., Brody, N., Ceci, S.J., Halpern, D.F., Loehlin, J.C., Perloff, J.C., Sternberg, R., Urbina, S. (1996). Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. American Psychologist, 51(2), 77-101.

IQ tests

                I was so happy when reading this article that while due credit was given to the Weschler for previously being the foremost used intelligence test- it is recognized that it is not the most suitable tool for assessing intelligence now. It boggles me a little that this test was used for so long, with so much invested in this test and its predictive results when the test itself was not developed with a clear understanding of what intelligence is. The validity issues that accompany that statement itself confirm my frustration with the “intelligence results” of the Weschler. It is a complete construct validity fail.  I personally have not had success with the Weschler as testing issues are not an uncommon thing for me. The Weschler is not able to adequately assess my intelligence and I have met the results with frustration for years. I have always known I am smarter than that test gave me credit for so finally- seeing research that supports my frustrations is a very rewarding thing. 

                I very much liked and supported the part of the article that said theory should drive test development but I’m a little confused. This article is under 20 years old but this is being presented as though it is a novel idea. Should we really be expecting to potentially walk into work positions where support team members/administrators believe something besides theory drives test development? The thought of this worries me immensely. I feel that I will be unprepared and unable to defend my stance enough to change years’ worth of mind sets that other things are suitable measures by which to develop tests for individuals. 

                As an individual with a verbal processing disorder- I am intensely interested in looking further into the Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test. I am very interested to see what types of intelligence results it would yield for me. It doesn’t sound like this test is very widely used in schools but I question why? If we know that the Weschler only have a predictive validity of X, or that there are serious issues with it not being designed with a clear understanding of what intelligence is…why are other measures not more widely used….I really wish the article would have gone deeper into explaining the reliability and validity issues with the UNVI.

Esters, I., & Ittenbach, R. (1999, June). Contemporary theories and assessments of intelligence: A primer.            Professional School Counseling, 2(5), 373. Retrieved April 3, 2009, from Academic Search        Complete database

Blog 5: IQ Tests

            Neisser (1996) started off stating, “Individuals differ from one another in their ability to understand complex ideas, to adapt effectively to the environment, to learn from experience, to engage in various forms of reasoning, to overcome obstacles by taking thought” (pg. 77).  This hit home for me due to being an educator for the past five years.  All students are different in their own way and that includes their learning styles.  When working with students you always want to make sure you are presenting information in a variety of ways to ensure that you are meeting each of the students needs.  However, there are factors that affect the students learning performance. 

Nesisser (1996) brought up the fact that many factors correlate with intelligence which is school performance, years of education, social status and income, job performance, and social outcomes.  The first factor, school performance, depends on personal characteristics of the students.  If the student wants to do well, then they will put their full effort to be successful.  Encouragement goes hand in hand because it is vital that the students receive support not only at school but at home as well.  The second factor, years of education, which has shown that the higher the test scores the more education they receive.  In this section, Neisser (1996) brought up the example of SAT’s and GRE’s.  This example affected me in many ways and made me question the research that was found.  I understand that this could be true to a point; however, the scores that I received would not predict that I accomplished my masters.  I do not take test well which I am aware is a weakness of mine.  Due to this reality, I have pushed myself to work hard so that I could accomplish the many things that I have.  Next, with social status and income, it comes down to the support that they are receiving at home.  It has been found that the children that are more likely to achieve high school status are those of privileged family.  Then, with job performance, it was stated that IQ scores are to be the “best available predictor.”  This can determine the job that you will most likely achieve when you are older.  Finally, with social outcomes, the students that are alienated or unsuccessful in school will most likely lead to delinquent behavior. 

In conclusion, I feel as though IQ can help you in determining aspects of people’s lives but at the same point should not be the sole instrument we use as educators and counselors.  As stated before, we all learn differently and there are many social factors that can affect our performance.     

Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T.J., Boykin, A.W., Brody, N., Ceci, S. J., Halpern, D.F., Loehlin, J.C., Perloff, R., Sternberg, R.J., & Urbina, S. (1996). Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns. American Psychologist, 51(2), 77-101.

Week 5

I’d like to start with a quote from the end of the Esters and Ittenbach article: “It may be that the contemporary theories of intelligence and the next generation of intelligence tests will help us answer some of the most fundamental questions about students’ success in school and in life. It may also prove true that so many other factors enter into the equation, that a measure of intelligence is not as predictive of success as some believe. In either case, armed with a more thorough understanding of intelligence assessment instruments and theories from which they were developed, school counselors will be able to communicate more knowledgeably with students, parents, and teachers about what intelligence tests can and cannot tell us regarding the students we serve.” (1999)

This summed up our readings this week in many ways for me. While we do know a lot about intelligence and many different researchers have come up with various testing instruments over the years, the truth is that there is still much we do not know. This is humbling. The human brain is still a mystery and I respect that.  Intelligence testing is another tool that we have to understand a student. While it can yield much information, it is one piece of the puzzle. Esters and Ittenbach write that school counselors can benefit from a theory of intelligence, “only if it leads to a better understanding of how children learn or if it assists in predicting future performance.” (1999)

I enjoyed reading about the various intelligence theories, and Gardner’s theory of “multiple intelligences” intrigued me the most. (Neisser et.al., 1996). It felt more comprehensive and took into account a broader definition of intelligence. I also found the section in Neisser’s article on Environmental Effects on Intelligence  interesting as it made me think about my cousin John. The first 2 ½ years of my life were spent in Vietnam where my parents and my Dad’s sister and her family were working to help rebuild from the war. My Dad’s sister is a medical doctor (a psychiatrist actually but she worked a lot with medical needs at the time). There was a baby boy who was a few weeks old in the hospital where she worked. He had been abandoned by his mother. He was very malnourished and covered in sores. My Aunt brought him back to our house so she and our servants could care for him as she knew he probably wouldn’t make it in the hospital. She soon fell in love with him and after a difficult and long adoption process; he came to his new home in the United States and became a US citizen at age three. John went on to live a privileged life in many ways and decided to go to medical school. He is now a successful Emergency Room doctor living on the West coast. At 46, he also is in such amazing physical shape that he competes in the extremely strenuous Ironman triathalons. I have often thought about how his life might have turned out if he had stayed in Vietnam. I doubt he would still be alive. It is amazing to me that such a malnourished baby living in a war torn country could become a medical doctor living a yuppie lifestyle in Seattle. The potential was there. He just needed the opportunity. It makes me think about the students I will encounter in the future. Whatever their intelligence test scores may be, everyone has potential to succeed in their own way. Each person is so unique and so will be their story. John has always been an inspiration to me and makes me remember to never underestimate the human brain and what people are capable of doing.

 Esters, I., & Ittenbach, R. (1999). Contemporary theories and assessments of         

            intelligence: A primer. Professional School Counseling, 2(5), 373.

Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T.J., Boykin, A.W., Brody, N., Ceci, S. J., Halpern,    

            D.F., Loehlin, J.C., Perloff, R., Sternberg, R.J., & Urbina, S. (1996). Intelligence:

                Knowns and Unknowns. American Psychologist, 51(2), 77-101.

 

Blog #5

            This semester is the first time that I have been introduced to all of the different types of intelligence testing that can be used in schools.  It is also interesting to learn about how many tools are available for school counselors to use in order to measure intelligence.  I wish that as a child I would have taken some sort of IQ or intelligence test other than the boring standardized tests they required everyone to take.  I think that would give me some sort of point of reference or maybe even a sense of appreciation, or non-appreciation of how they work. 

            Throughout my reading of Chapter 8 and the two articles, I was able to draw a few “simple” conclusions.  First, the word “intelligence” is a complicated term.  It seems to me that it is so extremely broad that no one really wants to take on the difficult task of defining it.  Secondly, the term “intelligence” can cover so many things.  It makes sense that people in the field will not settle making conclusions about a person’s intelligence based on the results from one test.  Yes, there are intelligence tests that school counselors feel more comfortable using.  However, regardless of what tests we feel comfortable using, it is important to know about all of the theories and resources available that we should take into consideration before drawing any conclusion about the intelligence of a human being. 

            If anything, this reading overwhelmed me with all of the information about intelligence testing, and all of the controversial aspects surrounding it.  I guess you could say that I am comforted by knowing how much research has been done on the topic, but in many ways that makes it even more complicated.  I know that in order for me to assess students on intelligence I need to know what resources are available or what research is out there, but since intelligence is such a broad topic, how will I ever know if I am choosing the right tests for the students?  It seems to me that it would want to try to test on a student by student basis, but what if I don’t know the student very well?  These are just questions that popped into my head after the reading this week.  I am hoping that after taking this course and going through the program, I will be much more confident in choosing the best intelligence testing tools for my clients.

Drummond, R.J. & Jones, K. (2010). Assessment procedures for counselors and helping professionals ( 7^th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.

Esters, I. & Ittenbach, R. (1999). Contemporary theories and assessments of intelligence:   

A primer. Professional School Counseling, 2 (5), 373-9.

Neisser, U. , Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T.J., Boykin, A. W., Brody, N., Ceci, S.J., Halpern,

D.F., Loehlin, J.C., Perloff, J.C., Sternberg, R., Urbina, S. (1999). Intelligence:

Knowns and Unknowns. American Psychologist. 51(2), 77-101.

Week 5 - Intelligence

There were several main ideas that I found in this week’s reading. The first is that there is a broad spectrum of definitions for the word “intelligence.” There are divisions between those who believe that intelligence if a unitary concept, and those that believe it is comprised of multiple elements. “A theory of intelligence is useful to educators and school counselors only if it leads to a better understanding of how children learn or if it assists in predicting future performance” (Esters & Ittenbach, 1999, p. 373). A theory of intelligence is also useful when designing intelligence assessments. In the past, intelligence assessments were developed without a clear construct of intelligence which they were intended to measure (Esters & Ittenbach, 1999). This presents an issue in determining whether or not a person’s score on one of the aforementioned assessments was truly representative of that person’s intelligence. For this reason, most contemporary intelligence assessments are based on a theory of intelligence.

Perhaps the most poignant piece I found in this week’s reading was Neisser’s exploration of the effects of various environmental factors on intelligence. There were many social justice issues that I found among his list. At the core of these issues was the central issue of poverty. Poverty affects the type of school a child will attend, how often the child attends school, what type of interventions a child may or may not have access to, the type of nutrition that a child has access to, exposure to lead poisoning, prenatal exposure to alcohol, and the type of social environment which a child develops in. All of these factors are interrelated and each one has the potential to negatively affect a child’s intelligence, as well as their score on an intelligence assessment. While reading about these things, I had a definite “life is not fair” moment. It really bothers me that children who are born into poverty are often at extreme disadvantages in almost every aspect of life – especially in education. I was surprised to learn that those children who participate in “Head Start” and other similar programs often experience only short-term gains on test scores and mental ability (Neisser et. al, 1996). However, I was pleased to learn that children who participated in such programs are less likely to be assigned to special education, less likely to be held back in grade, and more likely to finish high school than matched controls (Neisser et. al, 1996). Overall, I was reminded that as a school counselor, one of my duties will be to advocate for my students. This may mean investigating issues, such as those explored by Neisser, which may be affecting a student’s performance and experience at school. Being a school counselor will mean being an ambassador for justice in the educational environment. I know that this probably wasn't the takeaway intended within this week’s reading, but it is the one that impacted me the most.

References
Esters, I. & Ittenbach, R. (1999). Contemporary theories and assessments of intelligence: A primer. Professional School Counseling, 2 (5), 373-9.

Neisser, U. , Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T.J., Boykin, A. W., Brody, N., Ceci, S.J., Halpern, D.F., Loehlin,     J.C., Perloff, J.C., Sternberg, R., Urbina, S. (1999). Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. American Psychologist. 51(2), 77-101.

Intelligence

This week’s readings contained an abundance of information to process.  There is much more to intelligence that I had previously realized.  Overall, I took from the readings that the more we think we know about intelligence, the more questions we have about it.  What stood out the most is that there are so many different definitions of intelligence, and experts cannot seem to agree on any one “correct” definition because intelligence is so multifaceted.  Page 144 of Drummond & Jones (2010) includes a variety of theorists’ definitions of intelligence, some of which I found to seem ironically unintelligent.  For example, Boring’s (1923) definition was that “intelligence is what is measured by intelligence tests” (p. 144).  How insightful.  I found that the most subjective definition was Thorndike’s (1921), which stated that intelligence is “The power of good responses from the point of view of truth or facts” (p. 144).  Tell me more about “good” measures of intelligence… Even more interesting was the fact that intelligence tests have been created before “intelligence” was clearly defined.  Talk about invalid.

            Drummond & Jones (2010) discussed examiners identifying significant statistical differences between the Index scores and to consider these scores when making clinical and educational planning decisions.  This reminded me of a student on my caseload who was re-evaluated at the beginning of this school year.  The WISC-IV was given as part of his evaluation. We will call this particular student “Bob.”  Here is what the school psychologist wrote about Bob when interpreting his index scores for the WISC-IV:

Bob’s FSIQ was not found to be the best overall predictor of his intelligence due to the significant and rare discrepancies between Bob’s Perceptual Reasoning Composite (composite score of 112, above average) and his Verbal Comprehension (composite score of 89, low average) and Processing Speed (composite score of 83, low average) Composites.  Thus, Bob’s intelligence is too multifaceted to be adequately summarized with the FSIQ score.  It is important to consider each index independently in regard to the different academic tasks they impact.

            I believe, in general, that scores from standard intelligence tests do not give adequate information in understanding a person and how he/she learns, especially for my purposes as a teacher.  Knowing one’s verbal comprehension score or processing speed score give me minimal useful information to help meet a child’s needs in my classroom; these are facets of a child’s intelligence that I could most likely informally determine just by working with him/her on a regular basis.  I find that Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences can provide the most useful information for me as a teacher, and I wonder why there are not assessment batteries to assess this.  The Esters & Ittenbach article (2009) states that “the next generation of intelligence tests will help us answer some of the most fundamental questions about students’ success in school and in life.”  It seems to me that success in life relates to a career, and career success relates to one’s work satisfaction and self-efficacy in their careers.  In order to find satisfaction one must understand their strengths and weaknesses, which can also be understood through one’s learning style.  Therefore, an intelligence test that measures intelligence types (i.e. Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences) could help gear people toward better understanding themselves and finding greater success in school and in life.

            Neisser et. al. (1996) assert that “A given person’s intellectual performance will vary on different occasions, in different domains, as judged by different criteria” (p. 77).  They later state, “Practical intelligence can be relatively independent of school performance or scores on psychometric tests” (p. 79).  I see this regularly as a teacher; some of the most capable or intelligent students put forth minimal effort and lack school success (i.e. have low grades).  I have also had students who have very low IQs and yet still succeed.  I am reminded of a prior student of mine who’s FSIQ was barely 80 (I believe it was a 78).  His “intelligence” was low, but he succeeded in school because he had such good work ethic and determination, and found ways to understand tasks in order to successfully complete them.  This example can further be connected to Sternberg’s theory that “intelligent individuals are those who can figure out their strengths and weaknesses and find ways to optimize their strengths and minimize their weaknesses so they succeed in their environment” (Drummond & Jones, 2010, p. 151).  In addition, while this student may not have naturally excelled in the areas of intelligence that predict success in school, he was extremely kinesthetically and spatially intelligent.  He could find creative ways to put anything together, and had a knack for taking things apart and figuring out how they work.  However, his IQ score did not reflect these abilities, and labeled him as having “borderline intelligence,” when, in reality, he was very intelligent, just not in the “standard” sense of the term.

            Intelligence is such a multifaceted and complex concept.  It seems that there is so much more to learn about it and the factors that influence it, that it could be very difficult to develop a completely valid and reliable test to measure it.

Drummond, R. J. and Jones, K. (2010). Assessment procedures for counselors

            and helping professionals. (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Esters, I. & Ittenbach, R. (1999, June).  Contemporary theories and assessments

            of intelligence: A primer.  Professional School Counseling, 2(5), 373.

Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T.J., Boykin, A.W., Brody, N., Ceci,

S.J.,…Urbina, S. (1996, February).  Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. American Psychologist, 51(2), 77-101.