Intelligence Testing. The First of the Two

¶ … intelligence testing. The first of the two articles read in this article analysis on intelligence testing is called "Role of test motivation in intelligence testing," and was authored by Angela Lee Duckworth et al. This article links motivation as one of three highly important variables that is treated in intelligence testing. Significantly, the article references David Wechsler and his theory of intelligence a number of times in the text.

A pair of studies were performed within this article, the first of which was a "random-effects meta-analysis of random-assignment laboratory experiments comparing IQ scores under incentivized and standard testing conditions" (Duckworth et al., 2011, 2). In the second, a number of boys were followed from their teenage years to adulthood to see what role motivation played in their academic and non-academic results (including grades as well as career achievements and criminal behavior) (Duckworth et al., 2001, 2). Both studies found that motivation was a significant factor in the intelligence testing process and outcomes.

The intelligence theory that most applies to this particular article can be attributed to Wechsler, who considered intelligence to be "the aggregate or global capacity of the individual to act purposefully, to think rationally and to deal effectively with his environment (Wechsler, 1944, p. 3)." This definition is crucial because it allows for a component of the human will within the regard for intelligence -- which is illustrated in Duckworth's article as motivation.

Wechsler's theory of intelligence and the many cognitive examinations he designed to attempt to measure it encompassed the fact that "intelligence is not all that intelligence tests test" (Duckworth et al., 2011, 3). Duckworth's article contends that intelligence tests also measure motivation as well as aptitude. In many ways, the second article selected for analysis represents the antithesis of the premise and finding posited in "Role of test motivation in intelligence testing." The former article, which is entitled "The general intelligence factor" and is authored by Linda S.

Gottfredson, expounds upon many of the founding principles of g, which is, of course, the general factor responsible for intelligence. This theory of intelligence was widely popularized by Charles Spearman shortly after the onset of the 20th century, and contends that regardless of what specific type of intelligence test is utilized, those with higher aptitudes for intelligence tend to score better while those with lower aptitudes for intelligence tend to score poorly.

Gottfredson's article offers a number of different examples of evidence from the fields of biology, genetics, as well as modern day practical applications related to industry and commerce that indicate that there is an "overlap," or "intercorrelation" "that all such tests measure some global element of intellectual ability as well as specific cognitive skills" (Gottfredson, 1998, paragraph 5).

Highlights of this article include the statistical extraction of g via a technique referred to as factor analysis, which essentially procures how many dimensions are necessary for the explanation of the correlations among diverse forms of intelligence measurements (Gottfredson, 1998, paragraph 6).

What the article concludes, however, is that there is an immutable aspect of intelligence that is present within people at the time that they are born (although it is of course developed throughout their lives) that is quantifiable and confirmed by intelligence tests -- independent of exam types or external factors such as motivation. Culture has long been acknowledged as a part of intelligence and intelligence testing.

Interestingly enough, Gottfredson's article utilizes this fact as further reinforcement for the ubiquity and truth of the general intelligence factor, which she claims is existent regardless of culture and is widely independent of the societal norms and presence that affects the determination of intelligence (Gottfredson, 1998, paragraph 4). However, the very fact that the author used culture as a means of reinforcing the notion that g is the ultimate determinant of a person's intelligence alludes to the importance that culture plays within the field of intelligence assessment.

However, in many respects, culture (particularly when represented by socio-economic influences) can play a pivotal role in the education of a person -- which is not only a product of intelligence, but also can help to increase or buttress one's intelligence. The following quotation makes this point abundantly clear. Access to resources and educational opportunities are likely to provide an advantageous environment for the developing child. Vygotsky (1932) established that guided interaction with a more knowledgeable partner should advance the intellectual development of the child.

Middle-class parents answer children's questions with more elaborate explanations than do parents of a lower social class, who are generally less educated than middle-class families (see Chapter 5) (Shiraev and Levy, 2010, 197). This quotation is of immense importance because it illustrates the relationship between important cultural benefits -- that largely appear to be divided upon the basis of economics that play a part in a child's ability to score well on intelligence tests.

There are some children that are raised within cultural environments in which there is little availability for "resources" or for "educational opportunities" to avail themselves of, which can help to further along their "intellectual development." All of these factors, including the allusion to "elaborate" explanations of parents from better socio-economic backgrounds, illustrate the importance of culture, environment, as well as socio-economic privileges (or the dearth thereof) which can widely affect one's showing on intelligence testing. Consequently, they also affect the regard for one's intelligence.

The effectiveness of intelligence testing does seem a little dubious after analyzing the aforementioned articles and considering passages from Cross-Cultural Psychology: Critical Thinking and Contemporary Applications. The limits of intelligence testing can certainly be found within the role of test motivation in intelligence testing, which widely acknowledges that motivation, in addition to aptitude, is measure by intelligence tests. The article even goes.